Working and consumption under anarchism?

There'll definitely be stuff about it somewhere, last time I started a similarish thread someone recommended Malatesta's Anarchy which I found really helpful: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/errico-malatesta-anarchy#toc7
Maybe some communisationy stuff as well? https://libcom.org/library/z-communisation-gilles-dauv%C3%A9
This might also be the sort of thing Kropotkin is good on, I have to admit I'm not a Kropotkin expert.
I guess the questions are, when you say there's a system other than free access and people have to work first: how much do they have to work? What kind of work? Who measures and who decides? And so on.
I always think that sort of informal social compulsion would play a fairly big role here (probably heresey to some people), like you can have free access to resources but respect has to be earned, that sort of thing. Maybe? I guess it'd be interesting to look at why people work now - obviously the whole "being dispossessed and needing money to live" thing is pretty central, but I think if you asked people they'd give a lot of other reasons as well.

It is a difficult idea for regular political folk to swallow but personally I feel very confident that labour requirements would be fulfilled and that whilst it may be annoying to some, a few people not working needn’t be a problem. I’ve come to these conclusions without reading or hearing anything that explicitly addresses the potential problem(at least I don’t think I have).
I’m re-reading Conquest of Bread at the moment but I wouldn’t say Kropotkin is a particularly good thinker to explore for this sort of question - he’s so damned enthusiastic and positive about everything! I love it but it’s a little unrealistic and somewhat exhausting.
It’s been put to me that people choosing not to work would lead to a problematic level of resentment. Maybe that’s the case but it only makes sense if labour requirements aren’t met, or they are only being met by people having to work long hours. I think I’d be happy enough to continue to work whether or not there were some slackers around, as has been suggested, people work for more reasons than just money, and in an anarchist society work will hopefully be organised in such a way as to make it enjoyable, or at least not spirit crushing as it often is under capitalism.

I think all of our basic needs would be met, but if someone didn't participate then I don't think they would necessarily have access to other things. But I don't think it would really be a problem, because the amount of work would be much lower and we would actually feel satisfaction. For example if I felt that my job was helping people to communicate across language barriers and access culture, literature and knowledge I would like my job more, rather then doing it because the goernment thinks giving everyone english qualifications is making a 21st century workforce.

And there would be societal pressure, it wouldn't need to be formal or organised, people would just see that others were putting in a few hours a week to make things run and would want to help too.

With technology we have today we can easily satisfy people's needs with few people having to work. This was something dealt with by Kropotkin, in CoB e.g., as well as Berkman in his book-intro to anarcho-communism, and I think we've developed even more since then, so it really shouldn't be a problem.

https://libcom.org/library/what-is-anarchism-alexander-berkman

https://libcom.org/library/the-conquest-of-bread-peter-kropotkin

Explainthingstome #1:

‘But I haven't been completely sold on the idea that a big majority of people would work without any punishments on consumption.’

Free access assumes that the basics for living a human life are freely available. It does not mean everyone gets what they want when they want it. Free communism requires collective decision making, and the only ‘punishment’ is having to persuade others to want what you want.

What will constitute ‘work’ post revolution is an open question. To live ‘the good life’ people have to feel they are being useful. Much of what is considered ‘work’ today in future will be totally redundant. In practice, it will become difficult to differentiate work and what we call ‘play/leisure activities’.

Has anybody got a source for just how many people work in superfluous jobs that would free them up for more socially useful labour within a money-free society?

If not, what is the guesstimate of such socially useless occupations. Half the jobs under capitalism? Threequarters?

I imagine that some that initially appear only useful under capitalism, can be redeployed...for instance, the insurance actuaries, being skilled in statistics could still have a role in planning projects.

This is a good intro with some examples: https://libcom.org/blog/intro-communism-through-camping-trip-12072018

How far does this extend?

1. If you live in a house until you're 18, do you get evicted on your 18th birthday unless you start to put some work in? Who's going to do the evictions?

2. How do you stop people making use of roads, public parks, drinking fountains, bicycle pools etc. these all require work to maintain but they're not individual goods for consumption.

3. How are you going to record the entitlement to consume? Does this mean everywhere that goods are available to take there needs to be someone making a record of who took them? A central database of who's eligible to take them or not? Do people have to carry around a time card that proves they did some work?

Parecon tried to answer these questions, and we did an exchange with them about a decade ago here: http://libcom.org/library/participatory-society-or-libertarian-communism

I just don't see how you can restrict stuff like this without building a whole coercive/surveillance apparatus which would require more work than not restricting things. There might be particular events or distributions that someone who's well known for never contributing to anything might get some funny looks at if they turned up, but that's similar to crashing a party or similar now.

I agree with many points made.

I think it's not necessary to worry that much about how to compel people to do useful work under anarchism, & that consumption would be based on need and not productivity.

It wouldn't be productive to monitor individuals and police their consumption / work. It would be wasted effort, and create a hierarchy, and likely some oppressive force to go with it.

If we were free of the burden of the unnecessary work that only exists for capitalist profit / other pointless shit, a huge chunk of time that's freed up will inevitably be spent on more productive stuff.

I think people will (and do) want to be part of a cooperative effort to be productive, and be useful to each other as individuals, because it makes sense to do. Capitalism is characterised by freeloading off the work of others (by capitalists), but under anarchism freeloading wouldn't make much sense.

There will be more to enjoy from being someone who is helpful, and gives according to their ability to supporting communal wellbeing, rather than being an unpopular freeloader for the sake of it.

I think the social cost of not helping out just wouldn't be worth it, even without a set of rules to penalise freeloading - there are a huge number of productive things that can be fun or rewarding to do and I think people will find the tasks that suit them, and those that take on the difficult / dirty jobs will benefit from the gratitude of others, and satisfaction of helping out.

Consumption and production will be organised so differently, they would look very very different to what we know, and we probably can't really properly grasp how awesome living in a properly free communist world would be, work basically wouldn't exist, just doing useful stuff for each other.

Howdy Wotsit, good to ‘see’ you! Great post as usual.

Indeed, I don’t necessarily have to do things around the house but I’m happy to wash the dishes or decorate the bathroom just because these things need to be done for everyone’s benefit and doing them(and a thousand other things) just isn’t a big deal. If I didn’t do these things my partner would but a combination of a sense of responsibility and the desire not be to be selfish asshole or be thought of as one is more than enough motivation to carry out even the jobs I particularly dislike such as the aforementioned painting!

True, but also, for the most part what are considered difficult/dirty jobs is highly subjective - as an example, my absolute dream job is to be a street sweeper! I fantasise about this regularly and have even invented(in my head) two special tools that would enable me to make my patch spectacularly clean and tidy! Worryingly, I’m unemployed atm but my usual work is creative, well paid and pretty enjoyable, but it lacks true satisfaction because mostly my efforts are put to no practical use on account of the fact that the architectural timber work that I install or restore mostly resides in the rooms of mansions that are never used by their millionaire owners, which means they have no communal value.
To keep the streets of the small country town near where I live on the other hand would be of value to the whole community which would be good for everyone in general and for my sense of purpose and self worth in particular and would also give me the opportunity to interact with a variety of people.
Unfortunately, due to past difficulties and debts accrued I simply couldn’t live on the wages this type of work would afford me so I’m kind of stuck, at least for now, in my current profession.
Anyways, the point I’m making is that I’m sure that positions considered unpleasant will always be filled by people that don’t really recognise that unpleasantness. I think it’s also true that jobs that are currently considered lowly - street sweeping is often used as an example of a person without much social standing - will be elevated in their social status whereas currently prestigious jobs will be demoted or very often eliminated.