let it all collapse, the icon for the www.punkerslut.com website
Home Articles Critiques Books Video
About Graphics CopyLeft Links Music

Open Letter on Communal versus Collective Society

To the World Socialist Movement

By Punkerslut

From RadicalGraphics.org
Image: From "Money" Gallery from RadicalGraphics.org

Start Date: May 26, 2009
Finish Date: May 26, 2009


     I was just perusing the article, "What is Socialism?" and some thoughts came to me concerning Marxist idea of "distribution of wealth."

From this link:
http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/articles/whatissoc.html ... there is this section:

"Production under socialism would be directly and solely for use. With the natural and technical resources of the world held in common and controlled democratically, the sole object of production would be to meet human needs. This would entail an end to buying, selling and money. Instead, we would take freely what we had communally produced. The old slogan of 'from each according to ability, to each according to needs' would apply."

     I am certainly familiar with the old, Communist phrase. Yet, nobody seems to be repeating it much anymore, whether it's the Trostkyist or the Leninist or the Communist Parties. The lack of appeal to this idea, in a worker's sense, should be obvious...

     Why do we oppose Capitalism? Quite simple. It's because Capitalism is a system where those who do the most work, the common laborers, are the ones who receive the least. We receive the least in terms of our compensation, our civil liberties, our right to participate in the government or social order, etc. etc.. On the other hand, the Capitalist class receives the most of all these things. They are completely freed from work, giving every moment to luxury and play, and in return, they are the masters and controllers of virtually all wealth.

     Capitalism: I hate it because those who create the wealth are the ones who receive the least of it, while those who do the least work receive most of it. A situation that is exactly opposite of what it ought to be. In a communal society, where everyone can take and possess whatever fits into their hand, we'll have the same problem. Someone who works very little will receive much more than me, even though I put in a 12 hour day. And it's not absence of ability, so much as it is absence of initiative, ambition, and the impending reward for such labor.

     Either way, as a worker, my one primary deal is this: to be the owner of the wealth I produce, and the master of my working conditions. In Capitalism, I am just a pawn, but to a small, elite, well-guarded class. But in Communism, I am just a pawn, except to those who would rather be lazy than work. Are you trying to tell me, that there is no alternative -- that I am destined for one social contradiction or another?

     Clearly, if I am going to become my own master, and if I am going to grant the same right to those around me, we need to live in a Collectivist Society. In Capitalism, it is each according to what they can get. In Communism, it is each according to their need. But what we really want is each according to their contribution!

Thank you,
and I await a response...

Andy Carloff,

join the punkerslut.com
mailing list!

copyleft notice and
responsibility disclaimer