communism

I would like to know the rsf's thoughts on the prospects of communist society. I know that the rsf is not a communist organization but i also have not seen any of their opinions on the subject. My personal opinion on the subject is that communism can(though the universe is dynamic and nothing is ever guaranteed) arise from a socialist system due to the material conditions of created by a socialist economy but is not some goal to be reached for. I wish to see if my opinion differs or varies from the rsf as i find myself mostly in solidarity with their views so far. (i also would like to apologize ahead of time for a late response for on the weekdays I am a avid wage slave).

I cannot speak on behalf of the entire RSF, but I actually do consider myself a communist. However, the manner by which I believe communism will materialize is somewhat unorthodox. Simply put, I'm of the view that the trajectory of technological advancement is such that it's reasonable to predict that human labor will eventually become voluntary as a result of advances in automation, and that the massive productivity gains which advanced automation engenders will enable most goods and services to be distributed on the basis of need.

Traditional conceptions of communism are not feasible, in my opinion, due to the fact they feature no mechanism by which to measure the social opportunity costs of production; few individuals would choose to work in unpleasant, but socially necessary, industries; and there's absolutely no reason to suspect that a cosmopolitan ethos will manifest simply as a result of prolonged socialist social relations.

I believe that i am in solidarity with your views for the most part, as i find that the means of production can render most unpleasant human labor unnecessary. but as you stated it is obvious that this leap forward will have to be done under socialism as the nightmare it would create in the bourgeois dictatorship would be unbearable. also that we should not remove the human aspect out of society is wanted by the majority of communist( i personally don't know of any that would like the "lazy future" that this advance would create).

I believe the question largely hinges upon the concept of "need." As far as basic human needs are concerned, technological advances are such that we can presently afford to supply the entire human population with nutritious meals, housing, healthcare, and education. A grotesque maldistribution of resources prevents us from providing this minimum standard of living to people. I consider myself a communist, and I believe that the higher stage of syndicalism largely corresponds with the ideals of communism. Although "pure" communism is a hypothesis that may or may not emerge, I nonetheless consider it a worthy outcome.

indeed, i agree that capitalism has advanced the means of production enough for us to distribute upon need, proving its self to be advanced enough for a form of socialism of the workers choosing. (hopefully that choice will be syndicalism)

I consider myself a communist. However, I do question the idea of obtaining so-called "luxury" items under a system with no wages. This doesn't seem to be explained too well by most people who have answered the question for me. Labour tokens contradict the main argument(s) put forth against a wage system, but producing and distributing "luxury" items according to demand seems quite idealistic. Anyway, maybe I jumped into the idea too quickly, but communist theory just clicked in my mind after a while and made perfect sense. I don't think we can really separate "socialist" and "communist" movements as two separate things, so I'm not madly obsessed with trying to reach the final stage of communism as soon as possible. The three most important things to me are true democracy, caring for everyone's basic needs and workers' control over the workplace & production.