[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.

[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.

[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?

[Author]

Posts