Depends on what type of society we're talking here. Under a socialist society on its way to full communism, independent for-profit work would be fine, since the only person you're "exploiting" for that labor would be yourself. You'd own your own means of production, and derive the benefits of your work. The market would still exist, money still exist, etc. Under communism (in the definitional sense) all classes fall away, there is total abundance, and money is no longer necessary. So ideally you'd just make shit you want to make if you want to, and would give it to whoever you wanted just because.
Gotta be honest with you, I really can't imagine what "final stage" communism would look like, cuz it sounds really detached from anything I can understand. But the big socialist "meantime", that I can understand and imagine.
I mean Marx and Lenin et al would agree with that. There's a reason Marx writes very little about what communism would actually look like, so it's so far removed from our daily experience that we can only build the path to get there. It's up to future generations to actually decide what it really looks like. The closest we get in his writing is the following, which sounds pretty great tbh.
...while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.
Never reading theory and understanding it anyways 😎
Now, really
nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes,
I don't know what they were getting at but logistically, in a lot of fields and positions, job specialization and staying at them for quite a long time is a given.
Yeah job specialization is actually one of the "secret sauces" that Marx identifies as allowing capital to be so productive under capitalism so it totally going away isn't likely, but I think (and again all speculation here) he's getting at is that you don't have to be just a hunter or a fisherman or whatever. That your means of livelihood is not tied to just being that one thing, and you can do many things. You don't have to spend 40 or 100 hours a week being a garbage guy under threat of starvation. The beginning of the quote I posted above kind of supports this.
For as soon as the distribution of labour comes into being, each man has a particular, exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape. He is a hunter, a fisherman, a herdsman, or a critical critic, and must remain so if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood; while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.
Depends on what type of society we're talking here. Under a socialist society on its way to full communism, independent for-profit work would be fine, since the only person you're "exploiting" for that labor would be yourself. You'd own your own means of production, and derive the benefits of your work. The market would still exist, money still exist, etc. Under communism (in the definitional sense) all classes fall away, there is total abundance, and money is no longer necessary. So ideally you'd just make shit you want to make if you want to, and would give it to whoever you wanted just because.
Gotta be honest with you, I really can't imagine what "final stage" communism would look like, cuz it sounds really detached from anything I can understand. But the big socialist "meantime", that I can understand and imagine.
I mean Marx and Lenin et al would agree with that. There's a reason Marx writes very little about what communism would actually look like, so it's so far removed from our daily experience that we can only build the path to get there. It's up to future generations to actually decide what it really looks like. The closest we get in his writing is the following, which sounds pretty great tbh.
Never reading theory and understanding it anyways 😎
Now, really
I don't know what they were getting at but logistically, in a lot of fields and positions, job specialization and staying at them for quite a long time is a given.
Yeah job specialization is actually one of the "secret sauces" that Marx identifies as allowing capital to be so productive under capitalism so it totally going away isn't likely, but I think (and again all speculation here) he's getting at is that you don't have to be just a hunter or a fisherman or whatever. That your means of livelihood is not tied to just being that one thing, and you can do many things. You don't have to spend 40 or 100 hours a week being a garbage guy under threat of starvation. The beginning of the quote I posted above kind of supports this.
Ah now that makes sense, yes.