you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 6 points 10 months ago (3 children)

Short answer: We don't know

Longer answer: We hope technology will be fully developed by then to do that stuff for us

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] [S] 1 point 10 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    Communism doesn't mean no money, undesirable labor will always have to be incentivized. I think most people would prefer to be incentivized with the promise of access to luxuries, higher pay, more vacation time, recognized status in the community, rather than the threat of your survival, housing, healthcare, education, etc. You would still have taxes, but critical infrastructure would be owned by the laborers and the state.

    Ideally, because there would be no individual ownership of infrastructure or the means of production. So, again ideally, the profits are equitably distributed through labor instead of shareholders. One of the goals of this kind of system would be the elimination of class. Not because people can't make more money and have more luxuries, but because everyone has the same opportunities. Whereas most of the world today you can just pay for those opportunities.

    Now, how exactly do you pull this off? Idk, other than a massive cultural shift. I'm sure someone with a reply telling me what I got wrong will have that answer.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago

    This isn't entirely accurate. What you described is a 'socialist' community, the so-called 'lower stage of communism'. In this stage, there would still remain incentive based structures for labour. It employs a policy of "from each according to his ability to each according to his works". Inequality still exists as explained by Marx here:

    This equal right is still constantly stigmatized by a bourgeois limitation… one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another… Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal share in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another. — Critique of the Gotha Programme

    It is during this lower stage that the transformation of social relations and productive forces gradually alters the motivations for labor to a more virtue-based one.

    The problem most communism skeptic people have with communism is that they reason within the current modes of subsistence and assume it is impossible.

    “What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges.” — Critique of the Gotha Programme

    Marx also stated that he expected us to remain in the lower stage of communism for centuries, but it is during this stage that we prepare the productive forces to sustain communism and start producing goods for their use-value rather than for their exchange value, so that we can achieve the higher stage of communism which employs 'from each according to their ability to each according to his needs. This higher stage is truly classless because we would supposedly have solved scarcity, it would be stateless because people would organize communally to meet their needs, and it would be moneyless because the means of production and means of subsistence would be free for all to access.

    In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor… has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life’s prime want… only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be fully left behind and society inscribe on its banners: ‘From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!’ — Critique of the Gotha Programme

  • source
  • parent