Ordinary Commies (Part 1)

This post is a response to Amber Rhea's request for information about what we're for, when we're against capitalism. In particular, she poses the following questions:

What would a non-capitalist society/economy look like?

How would it function on a day-to-day basis?

What would life be like for the average person?

How would people be compensated?

How would personal property be handled?

What would the role of the state be? (because I know some anti-capitalists are also pretty anti-state, which to me seems to leave an impasse with an anarchist Utopia as the only logical conclusion.)

The following is not going to answer any of these completely, but will give some idea of where I'm coming from, an hoping that humanity is going to. Bearing in mind that I've written this between 3am and 4am, and not all the ideas or thoughts thrown to the wwwinds are complete or necessarily sensible, I hope that this gives food for thought, opens discussion further, and maybe clarifies what's going on.

*****

Before asking how we can meet the needs and wants of individuals in society, we have to determine what those might be. Some needs are universal and tangible, so that we can immediately say that everyone needs food, water, shelter and so on – the basic survival necessities. Other needs might be specific to different groups or individuals, and other needs might be less tangible, on an emotional or ‘spiritual’ level. One of Marx's chief points in writing Capital (and indeed, in his previous writings) was the way in which capitalism deprives humanity of the ability to express freely those more spiritual needs. His concept of alienation certainly included this idea.

In capitalist society, everyone works in order to stay alive. Whatever else may be gained by work, if one doesn't work then even the most basic of needs are threatened. Essentially, if we look at Maslow's hierarchy of needs, what Marx showed was that under capitalism, work became all about meeting the needs of safety and physiology; the other needs were relegated to "free time". Thus, a worker's interest and development is alienated from hir work. Marx argued that society could be ordered so that work was in accordance with the higher needs, and actually promoted directly the advancement to esteem and self-actualization.

Another way of looking at this is through the lens of Adam Smith, who observed that class can be defined by how long someone could expect to live if zie refused to work. The working class is that sector of society for whom the basic needs of food and shelter would quickly force them back to work. The Miners' Strike of 1984-5 was a truly epic industrial action, and in fact many of the miners were starving by the end of the strike, supported by allies in other industries who provided food and shelter for the strikers.

Effectively, Marx's communist society would be ordered so that the work people do gives them the best opportunity to fulfil themselves as human beings. Marx envisioned this involving people becoming their own experts in everything, and not specialising in anything. I think Marx may have been projecting his own polymath tendencies onto the rest of society when he wrote those few passages where he talks about this vision of communist society. However, I think we can turn to that other great philosopher, Richard P. Feynman, for an example of what the communist life might look like, according to this theory. Feynman had one central talent and career path, as a theoretical physicist and lecturer. Pursuing this was always his central work, but he also through his life became a Latin American drummer, an artist and many other side lines, each of which he pursued to the fullest extent of his capabilities. In our capitalist society, those might be regarded as hobbies, things apart from or distracting from one's main line of work, but in a communist society, it would be open for you to contribute to society as a whole, as a form of work, by doing any or all of those things. In so doing, you would also help to promote others' ability to achieve their own advancement towards "self-actualization".

Thus, the question of "how would people be compensated?" starts to fade away – work would literally be its own reward, in terms of esteem, and in terms of forging relationships in a much better way than capitalist work can (for instance, by seeing first-hand the results of your work in improving others' lives), and in terms of one's own creativity and freedom of expression.

Politically, there wouldn't be a "state" as such, because democracy would be completely devolved, with decisions being made and power being wielded at the lowest possible levels. In a way, if we consider Plato's Republic, with the "Philosopher-Kings", then that would also be a way of looking at a communist society – except that everyone would be a Philosopher, and everyone would be a King. Participation in democracy would not be a once-every-2-years affair, but would be almost daily, with the real chance of seeing one's own thoughts become developed into policy that spreads throughout society.

Marx himself was very reticent on the matter of how certain unpleasant-but-necessary tasks would be completed (when challenged on these matters, he usually retorted by suggesting that it would be the questioner and his ilk who would be given the job!). It seems clear that participation in society would be dependent upon being willing to "pitch in" with some of these jobs, in a way, the rest of one's work and leisure time is the payment or compensation for this relatively minor part of one's day. Banishment might be an appropriate punishment for someone who wasn't willing to play their art in keeping society running (just as a housemate who doesn't do their share of the household chores might be asked by hir housemates to find somewhere else to live).

The matter of distribution of wealth and resources is also tricky: while "from each as according to hir ability, to each as according to hir need" is a great principle, there is a huge logistical question of how to get provisions from those able to provide them, to those in need of them. Then there is the question of determining how much and when. Some form of administrative structure and accountancy will surely be needed to handle these matters, especially as there will always be a global level at which some of these distribution decisions need to be made (even if the vast majority of provisions are produced locally).

Assuming for the moment that the society is not facing a Malthusian catastrophe, and that supplies are ample, there is still a question of how to distribute the excess after the basic needs of security and physiology are met. I do not trust "means-testing", even as it might appear in a communist society, so this is a tricky issue. In academic research especially, where the potential benefits are impossible to know, how to prioritize one research project over another is always a difficult issue. While supplies may be plentiful, they will never be infinite, so it will never be possible to spend resources without looking at these questions. I suspect that peer review will still be the best way to assess academic matters in this respect; possibly a similar way of handling the distribution of other types of resources might be good, too (for example, with musical equipment, who gets first choice is decided by other musicians, on whatever grounds are relevant).

In terms of fair distribution of wealth, and the day-to-day expenditure by individuals of that wealth, I think that there is little alternative to some form of rationing scheme. However, we are used to seeing rationing in times of shortage, so the connotation that we have of rationing implying hardship need not apply to our plentiful communist society. The rationing level should be set sufficiently high that only an absolute glutton would ever reach it. If someone wanted to host a big party, then they might use up their ration allowance completely, but in that case, it would be the essence of cooperation and social interaction to invite some of the guests to use a portion of their ration allowance to help out (after all, "bring your own bottle" is a familiar concept, so why not use the same idea here?)

*****

In parts 2 and 3 (links when I've written them) I shall write a couple of fictional "day in the life" stories about Mark and Sandra: two inhabitants of a society that exemplifies one possible way the above description might look to an "ordinary commie".