this post was submitted on 30 Mar 2026
362 points (97.6% liked)

Comic Strips

23020 readers
2746 users here now

Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.

The rules are simple:

Web of links

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/45236296

from Pictures for Sad Children

(this particular strip found via this reddit post)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Swaus01@piefed.social 17 points 1 day ago (3 children)

I don't think I've heard the pitch on why abolishing the wage system would be good. Anyone want to infodump?

[–] Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 40 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Kropotkin goes into in "the conquest of bread", his argument is that our main priority as a society should be getting everyone's needs met. Once everyone's needs are met wages aren't really necessary as you are being provided food, housing etc. based on your need. At that point wages and money can only cause problems in the commune as it would only be for accumulation, and if someone starts accumulating money they also accumulate power, which challenges the equality of everyone in the commune.

Maybe the commune can collectively hold currency or gold to exchange with other communes, but if you give individuals that currency that is private property ( in the Marxist sense ) and should be removed to protect anarchy.

[–] Samskara@sh.itjust.works 13 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Sure basic needs might be met with food rations, a designated housing, standard uniform as clothing.

What about art, beauty, self expression, tickets to the opera, exotic food, fast vehicles, musical instruments, toys, cinema? You know the non essentials that make life more than subsistence survival.

Humans also desire and compete on social status.

[–] Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Kropotkin also goes into this, the idea is that once we re organize labor and get rid of all the middlemen, rent seekers, dead weight etc. We'll only have to work ~4 hours a day for necessities. That leaves an additional 4 hours of leisure time. You can use that new leisure time to work on art, music etc. especially the background labor that people often ignore. You want a canvas to paint on? Go to the art workshop and help them out for a day and they'll give you a canvas. Want tickets to the opera? Go work on setting up the stage, lights etc. and they'll give you a ticket. Want a toy, go put in some hours with santas elves and help to make some toys and you'll get one in return.

How feasible is this? Probably not as much any more. Kropotkin doesn't value specialization very highly, which makes sense as he was writing about Russia in the 1800s where most work was unskilled brute force labor like farming and working in a factory. Back then it was maybe possible for you to show up to the piano workshop and they could give you some menial job that would help them out. Now all the menial work is done by robots and machines and you need a decent amount of technical knowledge to be able to help out at the piano factory.

Anarchism has trouble dealing with specialization. While it increases efficiency, now more than ever, it also inevitably leads to classes and eventually a hierarchy of labor. Before they thought maybe mass education would fix this, as everyone would know a bit of everything and could help everywhere, but as education has expanded so has the complexity of the system, and the knowledge needed to be a functional part of that system.

[–] Samskara@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Only being able to go to the opera if I work for them creates a lot of power and elitism around this. Who decides, who gets to help set up the opera or clean afterwards? You need far less people to run an opera production than fit in the audience.

Okay, well maybe ~~bribing~~ gifting the doorman with some precious stones will get me inside.

Want a banana? Well, you just have to travel to the tropics by working on a ship, then help out at a plantation.

As you yourself point out this doesn’t work with highly productive economies.

[–] Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah, but it's not like opera attendance right now is spread very equally. At that point you have to ask is it more unjust that a janitor can't afford to see the show he's put work into, or someone can't see the show because they weren't able to get an in.

Who decides, who gets to help...

The workers do, hiring and firing decisions are either voted on by the troupe or by elected representatives of the troupe. Same with all the excess tickets, which would probably be split by how much labor you put into the production. So maybe you can't get a job in the opera, but maybe you can babysit for the director while they're working late and they'll give you a ticket. In this sense the audience becomes more of a community because all of them have some sort of connection to the performance, and all of them get to see the fruits of there labor. As opposed to now where you're alienated from the production and your only connection to the show is through purchasing a ticket. That community connected by labor will get more satisfaction from the opera then an audience of ticket buyers.

[–] Garbagio@lemmy.zip 3 points 2 hours ago

I think you just used a poor example. The fact is that the arts have been shared for millennia, and are an intrinsic part of the human experience. The community theater has survived every mode of production in human history, and will continue to do so. You may have to exchange some minor labor for a canvas, but the art itself is made to be shared. I have a hard time imagining any artist, no matter the skill, gate keeping their talents without the profit motive. There is no other reason. Art isn't like a commodity: More bread for me is less bread for you, but more art for me is also more art for you.

[–] ritsku@lemmy.world 13 points 1 day ago (2 children)

But how do you buy video games

[–] luciferofastora@feddit.org 1 points 3 hours ago

Ideally, you wouldn't need to buy, if they don't need to make money to survive. They would provide entertainment options to the public just as farmers provide their produce and electricians provide their services.

Across societies, that's where it gets more difficult, particularly if the others don't have that same system. The other comment already suggested a communal pool of money used to trade with other communes, which makes sense. A given commune probably can't produce all it needs or wants locally, and money in some form is a valuable "lubricant" for trade where payment in kind (goods and services) or promises is impractical (because you might not have goods or services they need or might not be able to fulfill your promise).

So if buying a game made somewhere else and you can't come to some other agreement (like helping the developers fix their plumbing in exchange for a copy), I suppose there would have to be a mechanism to order a copy through that communal pool. The game should probably also become communal property if your own livelihood is supplied by the community. If it doesn't allow multiple people to play with the same copy at once, purchasing more copies may be necessary, but maybe you can also arrange a way to take turns.

[–] Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Kropotkin says that you should use your labor to help out the video game co-op and then they'll give you the game. If we organize labor better we'd only have to work 4 hours a day for necessities, so the other 4 hours can be used to work on other projects and in return you'll get the products of that labor.

[–] village604@adultswim.fan 5 points 1 day ago

That doesn't sound sustainable on a global scale.

[–] ivanafterall@lemmy.world -1 points 23 hours ago

So I just have to hope I live near the RDR3 factory/fields whenever it releases!?

[–] felbane@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Nobody gets paid, everything is free, boom! Utopia. Easy.

[–] ivanafterall@lemmy.world 1 points 23 hours ago

I'm liking the sound of that! Why aren't we doing this!?

[–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 14 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I really love a lot of those concepts, and I'm really sad that it's always like...

Step 1: overthrow capitalism

Step 2: ???

Step 3: not profit!

[–] hugetoenail@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago

more like

step 1: overthrow capitalism

step 2: get sanctioned and assasinated by cia

step 3: back to capitalism or die

[–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 7 points 1 day ago

Really shows how much capitalism is the problem holding us back.

[–] SpikesOtherDog@ani.social 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I can only guess that the alternative is a standard government stipend.

The only way this can work is if there is no bourgeoisie.

[–] ripcord@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Also if there is no such thing as greed

[–] SpikesOtherDog@ani.social 4 points 1 day ago

People ruin everything.