Communism

Thanks Con. A few words about the parameters of the debate, as Con seems to be suggesting I’m not an actual communist. Communism is actually naturally anarchistic. Communism is basically a stateless (anarchistic), classless, and moneyless system. Anarcho-communism completely fits Con’s definition. The disagreement with some Marxists and anarchists is how to establish it. Anarchists reject authoritarian systems like the USSR which are supposed to transition into communism. Anarchists prefer the transition to either already be extremely close to communism in the stateless and classless sense. Or reject the transition all together and jump right in. If your arguments are against the system of communism, then they would also apply to anarchist communism. If an argument against communism doesn’t apply to anarcho-communism, then you are likely attacking not communism, but Marxist-Leninism or some other form of Marxism. Incentives Con presents two arguments. One says without wage labour, people will have no incentive to work and everyone will get lazy. And another attacking a moneyless economy. However, he has provided zero evidence to show that people need a monetary incentive to work. Research into motivation proves his assumption to be false. Intrinsic motivation is a stronger key to predicting job performance than external factors [1]. In fact, monetary incentive can actually decrease motivation to work. “The more people focus on their salaries, the less they will focus on satisfying their intellectual curiosity, learning new skills, or having fun, and those are the very things that make people perform best. The fact that there is little evidence to show that money motivates us, and a great deal of evidence to suggest that it actually demotivates us, supports the idea that that there may be hidden costs associated with rewards.” [1] Work in a communist society will be very different in a capitalist society. In capitalism, work is a means to an end. It is compartmentalized when possible, the value in work is just so you may consume products. However, under communism work is an end unto itself. There is the natural incentive to master a skill, produce the whole of a product and see the fruits of your labour without dealing with the stresses of a boss or the alienation of compartmentalized labour. Afterall, don’t many people already work in some ways for these intrinsic motivations? The cooking of a complex meal, when a simple meal will satisfy, hunting, knitting, ect all demonstrate the natural incentive to produce. The goal of communism would be to make labour as similar to our leisure work as possible. Furthermore, believing there would be no consequences to being lazy is clearly wrong. Being lazy isn’t a nice thing to be labeled, under any society. The social consequences of being lazy would be enough motivation. Even if the social consequences aren’t enough, the person who becomes lazy would become shunned by the community. Socially, he will be an outcast. If by some reason this isn’t enough and everyone becomes lazy, then nobody will benefit from mutual aid and therefore all would either starve or work. Lastly, this ignores all of the examples of wageless mutual aid. The Semai and Mbuti cultures are all based on mutual aid. Housing, food, and the like is all freely given to those who need it. The Jewish Kibbutz societies were set up in a “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” fashion and work was a value “ in and of itself, the concept of the dignity of labor elevating the most menial job, with no special status, material or otherwise, attached to any task” [4]. Yet still, these people have created thriving societies [4]. Squatting culture is yet another example of people working for nothing else but the good of their communities. Eyewitness of the squatting movements Peter Gelderloos writes: “In the total absence of wages or managers, they carry on a great deal of work, but at their own pace and logic. The logic is one of mutual aid. Besides fixing up their own houses, they also direct their energies towards working for their neighborhoods and enriching their communities. They provide for many of their collective needs besides housing. Some social centers host bicycle repair workshops, enabling people to repair or build their own bicycles, using old parts. Others offer carpentry workshops, self-defense and yoga workshops, natural healing workshops, libraries, gardens, communal meals, art and theater groups, language classes, alternative media and counterinformation, music shows, movies, computer labs where people can use the internet .... Nearly all of these services are provided absolutely free. There is no exchange — one group organizes to provide a service to everyone, and the entire social network benefits.” Mutual aid is hardwired into us. Being altruistic and kind in turn makes us happier [6]. Therefore, a society based on mutual aid isn't a steach from natural human tendencies and would make us happier overall. Money He next critiques a moneyless economy. He somehow gets the idea that a centralized bank would decide the needs of people. I never claimed this and such an idea is anti-anarchistic. Anarchism rejects hierarchies of this nature. He claims“War Communism” failed and since that policy tried to implement a moneyless economy, no moneyless system will ever work. One, this is hardly a failure of anarcho-communism because the USSR wasn’t anarchistic. Second, Con is committing a single cause fallacy. War communism was much much more than *just* a moneyless economy. Extreme economic centralization, authoritarian state control, and centralized distribution were also central. The coercion without benefit led Lenin to abandon it for the NEP [7]. It discouraged producing more than what you need, as the state would forcibly take it. It was coercive, whereas in anarchist-communism trade is done by free association. He states anarcho-communist economics are ludicrous, but I think citing the failure of a centralized authoritarian economics as demonstrating the failure of decentralized, horizontally structured, non-authoritarian economics is ludicrous. On the contrary, when capitalism failed the argentinians, they switched to a moneyless barter system in order to survive [8][9]. It worked so well that even though the economic crisis is over, barter clubs are still very active [8]. Furthermore, anarcho-communist systems are already in place in free shops. You give what you can and take as you wish [10]. Gelderloos writes [11]: Many accustomed to a capitalist economy who come into a free store are perplexed by how it could possibly work….they assume that since people profit by taking stuff and do not profit by donating, a free store would quickly empty out. However this is rarely the case. Countless free stores operate sustainably, and most are overflowing with goods. From Harrisonburg, Virginia, to Barcelona, Catalunya, hundreds of free stores defy capitalist logic on a daily basis. The systems of a gift economy and barter system are based on mutual aid, which I have demonstrated exist in the previous section. Along with the current evidence presented, it isn’t difficult to imagine a moneyless system of exchange working. Why Communism Communism takes the rights to life seriously. As well as freedom. You don’t have to live only by your wages. Your right to life is unconditional and wholly separate from if you make enough money. You don’t have the chains of wage-labour, in which you must sell yourself to a private business owner or starve. You have a say in your workplace, as the means of production are collectively owned and ruled via direct democracy. You also have a direct say in the decisions in your area. It is a system based on mutual aid, which is proven to increase well being (as argued for earlier in the debate). Sorry for this incredibly brief argument, as I’m out of space. [1] http://www.debate.org...