that post u made reminded me that i have a communism question for u. so whenever i talk about it with my friends they always ask me what a communist society would look like, how there would be jobs without money, etc and up to a point i can explain it but i quickly lose confidence once they ask about details like. in terms of who would do the "dirty work" aka the jobs ppl don't want, how would u "buy" things without money, that kind of thing. i know theres prob not a simple answer but ya
a moneyless system is easy to explain. you dont work for money in the current society, you work for the goods and services that money purchases, but it is not the thing that provides your electricity. power isn’t generated by how much cash they can funnel into the furnace. get rid of money and the exchange-value system for the much simpler use-value system that is already in place. if someone argues that people will consume inefficiently, then theyre suggesting that capitalism is somehow more efficient by throwing away billions of pounds of food per year and refusing to shelter homeless people just because they can’t afford it. we have the technology to produce a surplus of basically everything and market mechanisms as we understand them would generally be made unnecessary in any realistic model of human consumption (many capitalists like to come up with absurd quantities of such-and-such commodity [10,000 gallons of water per day, for example] being consumed by one obnoxious person that ruins communism for everybody else, as if thats actually a problem worth a serious investigation)
communist society can’t be drawn up and pointed at like “this is it” because its the future. we can provide a rough framework for how it could function based on how our current society is able to operate (like above when i said that we currently produce a surplus, so we know for a fact that people could be provided for in the future) but we won’t know what problems may arise in the future until we get there. this is absolutely something that can seem disheartening, but for people that are so goal-oriented that they will settle for the current conditions just because they dont want to go through the work of building a better society, they are generally privileged to the point where they dont understand the necessity of radical change. they aren’t the ones suffering every day, so its easy for them to dismiss something that seems like a lot of work, even if its the only chance of survival for a large portion of the population.
the dirty work thing is an easy enough argument to dismiss when you’re well-equipped with the knowledge to do so. it often takes the form of the doctor-janitor story, where a doctor shouldn’t be paid the same as someone that simply takes out the trash, but this is a misunderstanding (and actually quite a funny one. they couldn’t have picked two better professions to compare tbh because its so easy to refute). doctors are certainly important to a (literally) healthy society. they are the people we go to so that we dont get sick and die. janitors are considered the lowest of the low because they dont actually do anything besides mopping or whatever (???), but imagine a world without janitors (or perhaps a world without their function is a better way to put it). without them, we would all get sick and die, same as a world without doctors. all of the dirty countertops in the world would make us all rush to the doctors office as we caught each others illnesses (a funnier thing to think about is how the market would react by suddenly producing a large amount of doctors to meet the demand of sick people, essentially reducing them to just another profession, removing the elitism that surrounds them. this is actually similar to doctors in the early days of capitalism. they were no better than the local trader, butcher, etc because all of them were important to the well-being of the population).
its important to understand this because this is actually similar to the old marxist feminist argument that women’s unpaid labor (in the home) is just as important as mens paid labor (in the factories). this is perhaps a little dated in some ways since capitalism has directly included women in the process of production, but before that, [the western concept of] gender was a clear-cut system of labor, where men produced and women reproduced, both in the sense of reproducing children [again, in terms of western concepts of gender, not actually getting into trans politics here] and also in the sense of reproducing labor. by taking care of the husband and her family, the sole duty of the housewife, she was responsible for the commodity producer (and the future generation of commodity producers and labor reproducers), and by extension, production as a whole. if it weren’t for this process of reproduction of labor on the microscopic level, the production of commodities wouldve been impossible, and this remains true for the doctor and the janitor, two very different jobs that fulfill the same basic purpose: to keep society going. to argue that one is more deserving of pay because one requires more “skill” than another or that one requires more education than another isn’t actually a criticism of socialism, but a realization of the cruelty of capitalism, where only those with enough wealth can afford to educate themselves and sustain their wealth (not to mention that this completely ignores the absurd fact that healthcare is a profitable industry, which it shouldn’t be).
one of the easiest ways around this argument though, especially if you want to get more into what communism would probably look like, is to just say that most of these things would be automated or taken care of on a community level. healthcare could be almost entirely abolished if we were to get to a point where we didnt have competition and the profit motive preventing us from finding cures for diseases just because companies make more money from selling monthly prescriptions than they ever would by actually stopping illnesses in their tracks, and for many other cases, machinery could be introduced in the emergency room (as is already done today) to make the doctors job easier. i think its safe to assume that janitorial work would also benefit from the introduction of machinery into the cleaning process and this work would become less stressful and more accessible to the general public.
(also, on the job question, id be a bad commie if i didnt quote the bit in the german ideology where marx says “… 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.”)
so there you go. hope that helps.