Sotionov
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
ALB wrote:But the basic answer is given above by Morris: there is no point in us today working out a "mecanism" for a problem which might not arise or, if it did, not in a form that we can know.
Might not, or surely not to arise? Because if we cannot be sure that is will not arise, and we cannot- being that we cannot know the future, it is irrational and irresposible to base out struggle for a new society based on assumption, and not to plan mechanisms that will prevent the society from collapsing if the assumptions were not to come true, or at least until they come true.As I said, if one doesn't hold utopian views, the mechanisms I talk about are neccessary for preneting the democratic and cooperative society from failing. On the other hand, if one is confident in his utopian views, there is no reason to opposse the mechanisms I propose, because if you are right, they will be made superfluous by practice, just like a safety-net is made superfluous when one crosses the walking rope.
My suggestion would be to go with the libertarian communist model which SPGB accepts under the name of socialism- a democratic society functioning on the principle of "from each according to their abilities, to each according their needs", but with mechanism that ensure that the first part of that principles doesn't get degenerated into "from each according to their mood, or not at all". To call that not chaning the means of production is beyond intellectually dishonest.I will explain my concrete views about the organisation of socialist communities, but please first read all I have to say, including the finishing explanation before thinking about a reaction to my view.So, what mechanism do I conrectely mean. I mean firstly communities deciding what do they want to produce in order to meet their basic and general needs, and calculates what they need in order to produce it, including aproximately how much labor and on what jobs etc. Obviosly that would include labor needed for the functioning of the system, like making sure electricity doen't go out, that the roads are clean and repaired, etc, etc. I don't need to explain this to you, you all support this kind of socio-economic system.Where our vies differ is that I think that communities should institute labor quotas, of course- for everyone except the children, old, sick, disabled, pregnant and nursing. E.g. in one community it might proper that everyone not falling into that category would need to contribute 20 hours a week in order for the needs of the community to be met. So, the community would institute a labor quota that says that each adult and able person should punch in 20 hours a week doing any work that sees to producing products and services that the community deems socially neccessary and includes it's plan of production or that seems to the proper functioning of the system, as I mentioned, which would also be organized by the community as socially neccessary labor.That labor quota would include a condition that e.g. 4 hours a month needs to be done on jobs that the community sees that there is an insufficient amount of people normally appying to do, those being the "dirty jobs" that is- jobs that are harder, dirties, more dangerous then other, or that the people in that community simply find less pleasurable and appealing.If some people want some product that the community hasn't included in their production plan, they are perfectly free to produce it themselves outside of their work week, and if they don't know how and don't want to learn, they are also free to persuade those who do know how to make it for them, or to persuade the community to put those things in the production plan on the next meeting.Outside of the 20 hour work week in which the able person contributes to sustenance of the community and it's system, he is perfectly free do what he wants, as long as he doesn't commit any anti-social acts (aggression, harm, bullying, oppression, vandalism etc.)If an able person does his share- he get's full access to the products and services that the community provides, if he doesn't- he's access is reduces only to the neccessities of life.Of course, just like with the planning and production, all the details of the labor quota system would be worked out by the community itself.Now, after explaining my view, I want to give the finishing explanation I mentioned. It is important that I point out, and it is important that you understant that these mechanisms by which a community would regulate contribution to production are by definition only a contingency plan to the assumptions that I've mentioned in my previous messages. Please bear with me and see what I mean by this.As I have mentioned, we have two facts of life that are hardly ever to change:1) in order for us to consume, we need to produce, if we want anything except the living standard of a hunter-gatherer tribe, we have to labor, because no one and nothing is going to make what we need istead of us- the working people;and 2) people in general don't like doing (hard, dirty, dangerous) work and will avoid when they can, and will choose the easier, cleaner and safer work when they can.Even if we are to assume that technological advancment will give us machines that will produce and do everything, or assume that people in general will have a conversion to saintly figures that will labor and produce all the things we want without any external circumstances motivating them to do so, these mechanisms I talk about do nothing to dispell such assumptions that we might have.Even if technological utopianism, or the utopian concept of the new man do become reality, even then can the mechanisms I talk about stay instituted, and stand there superflous, being made unneccessary by practice- by reality.If one really thinks that one of those facts of life, or both of them, will be made obsolete with or shortly after the establishment of socialism, then there is no reason to opposse the mechanisms I talk about. He should be ready to say- sure, let us institute such mechanisms as a back-up, and they will become unneccesary shortly after the establishment of socialism. For it is irrational to opposse puting a safety net under the walking-rope, even if one is confident that he will cross it, because one can never know the future and know for certain what will or will not happen.
Ed wrote:This is a sweeping generalization. Who's to say what is dirty? Who's to say what is hard?Watch the show Dirty Jobs. Anyone who thinks that such work could be done solely by volunteers is simply utopian. Anyone who thinks that mining neccessary for a society with the present kind of needs could be done by volunteers, is beyond delusional. Sorry, but that's just a fact. If you give people free access to fulfull their needs and leave them to do only what they want, when they want it and how much, that kind of system would collapse within days, his has been shown on the example of communes, and is to even more true of the society at large. The only people who would volunteer to mine, when they can do anything else or nothing at all- would be the ones that have some sort of masochistic disposition, and that part of the population is surely not going to mine enough to sustain an industrial economy. It just brings us back to what i already said- the only way one could imagine that a free access system would be sustainable is to dream about technological utopianism or the utopian concept of a 'new man' comming into being. 0
ALB wrote:People are prepared to work "hard" if they consider what they are doing is enjoyable or necessary.The considaration of the neccessity of something being done is antitechical to free access. You know that you will not be denied anything even if you don't do anything, let alone if you don't do the hard, dirty and dangerous work.
Quote:What work is "dirty" is in the eye of the beholder.Yet there is a tendency of how people percieve the "dirty", and it is somewhat connected with the biological response to stink, but also to other thigs that can be objectively defined as dirty. Some work is objectively easier then another, likewise with dangerousness.We can see from the examples of communes (cooperative, democratic economical communities), it follows as a rule- if there is no system that establishes a portion of the labor quota that an able member has to dedicate to cleaning- the commune will be dirty. Sure, there are people who like to clean, and people who are extraordinarily diligent and socially responsible that do the cleaning, but they are simply not in lagre enough a number neccessary for the community to be clean, and their number is also logically to be expected to reduce due to the indignation of them seeing that they do all the cleaning and that the majority as a rule chooses to do the easier and more pleasurable work. This is more true to the proportion of the size of the community.With the lack of mechanism that makes sure that (hard and dirty) work gets done, the vast majority will not volunteer to do it, and it is perfectly natural and expected for people to strive to reduce their discomfort and increace their comfort as much as they can. To dream about an emergence of a race of 'new man' who will go against this biological imperative only propelled by his own will-power, without any external motivation (even if he does or doesn't- he's not denied access to anything)- is to delude oneself and be utopian.
Quote:Sotionov wrote: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 according to his abilities.This does not follow even on its own terms. There are plenty of people even today who consume without contributing to production (eg the young, the old, the sick) — another "fact of life" that will no doubt continue (and probably be extended) in a socialist society. So this claim would need to be revised to: if people are to consume, "mechanisms" will be needed to ensure that enough people work.
You didn't seem to notice that I wrote "according to abilities".
Quote:But what does "mechanisms" mean? It sounds ominous and seems to suggest some form of economic coercion tying what some persons are allowed to consume to the amount of work they do.Mechanisms of "economic coercion" need not be ominous, they can be democratic, non-oppressive and humane. E.g. if an able-bodied person would to comsume and not contribute, and the democratic community decides to deny him the possibility to consume beyong the neccessities of life, what is there ominous about that? It's not only just, it's beyond just, being that the community is so merciful as to feed, clothe (and similar) it's own exploiter.
Quote:Obviously, because "in order to provide for people's needs, people need to work", arrangements will have to be made to ensure that the needed work is done, but it does not follow that these have to involve economic coercion.Propose to me some other mechanism. Bakunin speculated of a possibility of a sort of political mechanism- that an person consuming and not contribution would lose their political right to participate in the organization of the community, but I don't see that as sufficient.
"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.
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.
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?
