Quick Question

[LOLseph Stalin]

I was just thinking about something that commonly comes up in Capitalist arguments against Socialism: "You shouldn't support people who are able to work, but choose not to". This leads to my question. Would these kinds of people who refuse to work, but have the ability to be considered lumpenproletariat?

[ZeroNowhere]

Wait, what? I wouldn't really see how they were lumpen.
Also, that capitalist argument is usually against reformism, not against actual socialism.

[Dóchas]

Wait, what? I wouldn't really see how they were lumpen.
Also, that capitalist argument is usually against reformism, not against actual socialism.

do you really think they know the difference between reformism and socialism? if they know about socialism they are enlightened in my books :lol:

[Tjis]

Use their own argument against capitalists for fun and giggles.
Not working and receiving similar things as everyone else is way better than not working and monthly earning an amount of money that most don't even earn in their entire life.

[bobroberts]

If you can't offer someone a reason to work, then they shouldn't be forced to through threats of poverty. If people don't want to work it's most likely because they lack opportunities to pursue work they are interested in, or there is no formal recognition that what they spend their time doing is work. We need to abolish the idea that being coerced into labor you find demeaning, exploitative, or unrewarding is some kind of virtue.

[F9]

I do not support a socialist society anw, bit if it was gonna exist at anytime, i think that not letting someone to eat, force him to work etc etc consequences are things that normal "leftists" wont do and shouldnt do.If this is would be implanted in a socialist society, i will never describe it as a "leftist" socialism, but a "discriminatory" socialism.Lumpenproletariat wouldnt exist because in the way most of us see the socialism here, there wont be any classes.

Fuserg9:star:

[Coggeh]

I do not support a socialist society anw, bit if it was gonna exist at anytime, i think that not letting someone to eat, force him to work etc etc consequences are things that normal "leftists" wont do and shouldnt do.If this is would be implanted in a socialist society, i will never describe it as a "leftist" socialism, but a "discriminatory" socialism.Lumpenproletariat wouldnt exist because in the way most of us see the socialism here, there wont be any classes.

Fuserg9:star:
Actually having social welfare at all is not productive for society , it is something that would only exist in capitalism . The reason for this is because the market cannot offer enough jobs so it is not the workers fault , therfore they should not starve because of the shortcomings of capitalism . Social welfare is actually the perfect example of how capitalism doesn't work . However it is obvious that social welfare is a good thing within capitalism and should always be defended but it is not productive .

How productive is it to have tens of thousands of construction workers out of the job and still have a massive housing shortage ? they should be employed at trade union standard wages by the state to build these houses . And for those who cannot find available work in socialism should be trained in areas of their choosing and paid a decent wage while in their training (yes pay them for education , i did just say that )

The fundamental point of this can really be summed up as , as long as their are shortages in society , their can be no unemployment . Its illogical .

[Invincible Summer]

Most people are willing to work, provided that they feel like they are gaining something from it.

Getting paid a wage that you know is shitty compared to the work you put in is not gaining anything - lots of workers know this happens, but don't see it with socialist eyes (in other words, they don't see it as "exploitation" but just "how the world works").

But in a post-revolutionary society, work is supposed to make the worker feel empowered and enriched in him/herself that the product of labour is his/her own and not being bought off by some greasy motherfucker in a suit who sells it off for more.

So what I'm saying is that I think the unmotivated in today's society may find motivation in a society where work is not necessarily for survival or a boss, but for their own fulfillment.

[brigadista]

how many CEOs actually "work"? long lunches , golfing "meetings" and expense accounts off the back of the workers make them more reprehensible than the example given...

[Iowa656]

Yes they would be considered lumpen.

It's a false question anyway. Those who don't help the community don't receive anything from it.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

Unless you do your share of the work you are not going to get help from the community.

[F9]

Yes they would be considered lumpen.

It's a false question anyway. Those who don't help the community don't receive anything from it.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

Unless you do your share of the work you are not going to get help from the community.

You said two things that contradict each other!The quote "from each etc etc" means that everyone will get what s/he needs, none is getting "behind", and s/he will received, not nothing from the community but EVERYTHING.:rolleyes:
The "false" is your answer, rejecting people from their choices to work or not, is a capitalist and fascist "measure" and it has nothing to do with the whole leftists ideas.

Fuserg9:star:

[revolution inaction]

You said two things that contradict each other!The quote "from each etc etc" means that everyone will get what s/he needs, none is getting "behind", and s/he will received, not nothing from the community but EVERYTHING.:rolleyes:
The "false" is your answer, rejecting people from their choices to work or not, is a capitalist and fascist "measure" and it has nothing to do with the whole leftists ideas.

Fuserg9:star:


I think it means that if some one is able to work but wont then they don't get anything. Why would we give freely to people who refused to give anything back? Both parts have to be satisfied, if you are part of the community then you work according to you ability and in return you need are satisfied, but if you don't then the community is not required to satisfy your needs.

[ComradeOm]

I think it means that if some one is able to work but wont then they don't get anything. Why would we give freely to people who refused to give anything back?Which is better summed up as "From each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution". This applies to both the bourgeoisie and lumpen

[F9]

I think it means that if some one is able to work but wont then they don't get anything. Why would we give freely to people who refused to give anything back?

No, and especially if you are talking and for an Anarchist society too.Who will judge who is working and if he does his job, works enough, who will decide who gets food etc and who donts..?We are having an equal society there, job is for fun, and for the will of the person to help out the community.If someone chooses(for his/her reasons) not to "work", then it is totally acceptable, and s/he still is an equal member with everyone.There is no discriminatory, no "classes", we try not to remake classes, and by refuting to give to some people what s/he needs, we are "rebuildnig" classes, we are going against what we have been talking all this time.And pass your hand first, dont wait for the other, and in some time its probably going to "earn" him and join to feel the "warm" to contribute for your "neighbors".
This have been discussed numerous times in here too, maybe do some search!;)

Fuserg9:star:

[revolution inaction]

Which is better summed up as "From each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution". This applies to both the bourgeoisie and lumpen

No, then you would receive in proportion to what you contributed, that is not what i am talking about.
"from each according to ability, to each according to need" clearly requires that you contribute as you are able to but doesn't attempt to measure the exact amount that you contribute and pay you accordingly instead allowing you to take freely from collective stores. This is not the same as allowing you to take what you want regardless of wither you contribute or not.

[ZeroNowhere]

I think it means that if some one is able to work but wont then they don't get anything.
That's basically a overly strong advocacy of labour credits, as I see it. Most of us, at least as far as I can see, advocate free access (to a certain limit, when it becomes a luxury requiring labour credits) to basic necessities, including stuff like ordinary food, energy, appliances, and such.
If one wants to live a hermit lifestyle or whatever, then they can feel free to do so.


I do not support a socialist society anw
Of course you do. Unless you're using 'socialism' in the Leninist sense, but I don't think that even the Leninists could agree on what that is, so...


do you really think they know the difference between reformism and socialism? if they know about socialism they are enlightened in my books
Well, of course, my point is that when they use that to argue against 'socialism', they're actually arguing against reformism.

[Coggeh]

No, and especially if you are talking and for an Anarchist society too.Who will judge who is working and if he does his job, works enough, who will decide who gets food etc and who donts..?We are having an equal society there, job is for fun, and for the will of the person to help out the community.If someone chooses(for his/her reasons) not to "work", then it is totally acceptable, and s/he still is an equal member with everyone.There is no discriminatory, no "classes", we try not to remake classes, and by refuting to give to some people what s/he needs, we are "rebuildnig" classes, we are going against what we have been talking all this time.And pass your hand first, dont wait for the other, and in some time its probably going to "earn" him and join to feel the "warm" to contribute for your "neighbors".
This have been discussed numerous times in here too, maybe do some search!;)

Fuserg9:star:
If someone chooses not to work for society they should expect nothing from it .We need workers after all and if people feel like they can do nothing and demand equality to those that are working they got another thing coming IMO .This is equality , and marxs quote of from each according to his ability to each according to his needs means exactly that you work to your ability and you get according to your needs .

If one says that they don't want to work because its not fun or whatever they can starve if all i care .

[Coggeh]

You said two things that contradict each other!The quote "from each etc etc" means that everyone will get what s/he needs, none is getting "behind", and s/he will received, not nothing from the community but EVERYTHING.:rolleyes:
The "false" is your answer, rejecting people from their choices to work or not, is a capitalist and fascist "measure" and it has nothing to do with the whole leftists ideas.

Fuserg9:star:
Its not a fascist measure , the only reason we support social welfare is because capitalism cannot provide jobs to everyone and it is not the fault of the worker that the market fucks up , therefore workers should not be punished.

The quote means they will get what they need provided they contribute to their ability . Your leaving out half the quote . Wow this is so dogmatic .. arguing over what marx said and what he didn't say :lol:

[revolution inaction]

No, and especially if you are talking and for an Anarchist society too.Who will judge who is working and if he does his job, works enough, who will decide who gets food etc and who donts..?

The anarchist FAQ disagreas with you. http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secI4.html#seci414


Other anarchists are less optimistic and agree with Camillo Berneri when he argues that anarchism should be based upon "no compulsion to work, but no duty towards those who do not want to work." ["The Problem of Work", in Why Work?, Vernon Richards (ed.), p. 74] This means that an anarchist society will not continue to feed, clothe, house someone who can produce but refuses to. Most anarchists have had enough of the wealthy under capitalism consuming but not producing and do not see why they should support a new group of parasites after the revolution.

I think this is going to far, I'd be happy to feed clothe and house the lazy but I don't see why they should get anything else.

I agree with this

Some anarchist communities may introduce what Lewis Mumford termed "basic communism." This means that everyone would get a basic amount of "purchasing power," regardless of productive activity. If some people were happy with this minimum of resources then they need not work. If they want access to the full benefits of the commune, then they could take part in the communal labour process.
Although I wouldn't call it purchasing power as nothing would be purchased, and obviously people who couldn't work would get the same access as people who could work and did.




We are having an equal society there, job is for fun, and for the will of the person to help out the community.

Some jobs will never be fun, until we can eliminate these jobs we must rotate who does them.



If someone chooses(for his/her reasons) not to "work", then it is totally acceptable, and s/he still is an equal member with everyone.

Everyone who is able has to contribute to society whether you call that contribution work or not. Otherwise the phrase would be "to each according to there needs"




There is no discriminatory, no "classes", we try not to remake classes, and by refuting to give to some people what s/he needs, we are "rebuildnig" classes, we are going against what we have been talking all this time.

It's not rebuilding classes to require that everyone do a share, classes are where there is a power difference.



And pass your hand first, dont wait for the other, and in some time its probably going to "earn" him and join to feel the "warm" to contribute for your "neighbors".
This have been discussed numerous times in here too, maybe do some search!;)

Fuserg9:star:
What? I'm not talking about people paying for things, but they can't do nothing for ever and expect no one to care either.

[revolution inaction]

That's basically a overly strong advocacy of labour credits, as I see it. Most of us, at least as far as I can see, advocate free access (to a certain limit, when it becomes a luxury requiring labour credits) to basic necessities, including stuff like ordinary food, energy, appliances, and such.
If one wants to live a hermit lifestyle or whatever, then they can feel free to do so.



I am quite strongly opposed to labour credits, except maybe where productions is still not fully socialized yet, I favor free access for everything, so long as you make some contribution.

[revolution inaction]

This is equality , and marxs quote of from each according to his ability to each according to his needs means exactly that you work to your ability and you get according to your needs .

Marx said it but he is not the origin of the quote, mostly agree on the interpretation though




If one says that they don't want to work because its not fun or whatever they can starve if all i care .
I don't see why we would leave people to starve, just restrict them to necessities, then the can change there mind later without being forced which would make them resent the system.

[Coggeh]

Marx said it but he is not the origin of the quote, mostly agree on the interpretation though



I don't see why we would leave people to starve, just restrict them to necessities, then the can change there mind later without being forced which would make them resent the system.
People have to contribute , people can't always work , that's what a shorter working week , paid holidays , earlier retirement , free college is for .

If a person who refused to work even though had the opportunity started spouting on about the system being unfair ... I doubt they'd get much support .

The definition of work in socialism is different to that in capitalism , writing a book would be considered work , artistry etc etc . All would be considered work and by no means should these people be excluded from the necessities of life . But those who refuse to do anything , who do not contribute in any way to society deserve nothing from it .