Lazy People get rewarded for nothing.

[originofopinion]

I`m a Communist, but one of the criticism I get frequently is this-

Communism makes lazy people and hard-workers the same profit.

So if everyone gets the same for any difficulty of job, would n`t people pick the easiest jobs before the hard ones. And if so, then wouldn`t lazy people be rewarded for nothing.

The main question is-- Where the incentive in Communism

I am still Communist it`s just this has always been a question mine and my peers.

[ArrowLance]

Well, it sort of assumes people are lazy, I don't agree with that. But all incentive would be in prestige and self-fulfillment. You are free to do what you want, at least in post-scarcity situations.

An example of people not defaulting to easy jobs is Cuba. Cuba has a very high rate of doctors to population (the highest, or at least it was at some point). Even if the doctors are paid more and have access to certain perks, their overall living standards are not much better.

[originofopinion]

but what if someone doesn't work @ all?

[Cooler Reds Will Prevail]

Well I'd imagine that most people that are bringing this up are talking about what they consider "communism" which is, of course, what we would call "socialism". Remind them that socialism is the transitional state where a new society is being built, and during this time we go by "from each according to his ability, to each according to his work"... People won't be rewarded for being lazy, they'll actually be genuinely rewarded for working harder.

In capitalist society, if we both have the same job and you're working your ass off while I sit there and do the bare minimum amount of work to not get fired, we're getting the same exact paycheck at the end of the week. How motivating is THAT?

[Cooler Reds Will Prevail]

Some may disagree with me, but I'm of the opinion that even in communist society, those that are capable of contributing their work and choose not to should not be allowed to leech off the rest of the population. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" does not mean "From each according to whether he chooses to be a lazy societal parasite, to each according to his need."

[Old Man Diogenes]

You could share the jobs around that people don't want to do, and I think some of the hard jobs are the neccessary ones so I think some people would still want to do them.

[Manifesto]

Everybody has to work in a functioning society or else "from each according to his ability to each according to his need" would not work very well. I was wondering when this would be posted. My friends say that line exactly and comes up for everybody.

[Manifesto]

You could share the jobs around that people don't want to do, and I think some of the hard jobs are the neccessary ones so I think some people would still want to do them.
And I'm an example of this I like to do hard jobs, easy ones are boring.

[Tjis]

This argument is rooted in the idea that poor people aren't poor because of material circumstances, but because they are lazy, and that rich people got rich by hard work.
But as you probably know this is not true. In some cases it is, but these are exceptions. Usually, people get rich because they somehow already had a lot of money, which they then could invest in something. Or they just inherited it all and live all their life on daddy's money.
The average person can work as hard as they can all his live and never improve their station though.

In other words, capitalism is actually worse. it allows lazy people to have a much better standard of living compared to the average person as long as they're born into a certain class, while making others work hard all their lives without any reward.

On communism, it doesn't actually make lazy people and hard workers make the same profit for the simple reason that there is no such thing as profit in a communist society. In return for the work you can provide, you can get everything you need.

[CommunityBeliever]

but what if someone doesn't work @ all? The only type of person who does not work at all in our current society is bourgeoisie and they make millions of dollars, heck those people don't even have to drive their own cars :lol:

Of course when you say "someone who doesn't work at all" you might be thinking of the homeless. Those people have to work. They have to work to search for free food, they have to work to find a place where they do not get rained on at night, and finding things is not that easy since they do not have a car. In truth the only people that do not do work are bourgeoisie millionaires, the type of people who are so rich they do not even have to drive their own car because they have a Chauffeur.

Whats more is many of these people do not do work their entire lives, because they have millions of dollars from their parents and they exploit other workers, we can assure you that these people will not exist in communist society.


Communism makes lazy people and hard-workers the same profit.Capitalism has lazy people who are millionaires, well hard-workers get a small and decreasing part of the profit of their work, in capitalism it is all the opposite of it should be lazy people who just happen to be millionaires who do no work get away with it well the workers are mistreated and abused and unappreciated.

Communism is more about eliminating private property so there is common property which is for the benefit of every single person including those people that are jobless. Everyone is indeed benefited but that does not mean that jobless people are necessarily given preference.

I would say it is capitalist society that mistreats and abuses the workers and pays them so lowly that makes so many people decide to drop out and be homeless without a job. Capitalism creates the incentive for unemployment. Communists are the ones that treat the workers well so hopefully that answers your question.


The main question is-- Where the incentive in CommunismThe incentive in communism is to increase the common good of the human race, the incentive in capitalism is to increase the size of the pockets of the few.

[Old Man Diogenes]

And I'm an example of this I like to do hard jobs, easy ones are boring.

Thanks for the backup there comrade. :thumbup1:

[Q]

The argument that people are lazy under communism is based on the assumption that people are naturally lazy and need a money dependence in order to become active. Thus the capitalist way is the best way to organise society.

All facts however point out that people are very creative, resourceful and strive towards fulfilling basic needs. The influential sociologist Maslow put forward a theory that there is a hierarchy of needs. The bottom of them consist of body needs: sleep, food, sex, etc. The second layer is that of security needs: a house, having a job, etc. The third layer is that of having a social network. The fourth is getting a reputation in that network, self-esteem. The top layer consists of creativity, exploration, actualisation, etc. Whereas capitalism forces people down the pyramid to constantly worry about their most basic needs, socialism and communism strive to fullfill the basic needs in a collective fashion so as to enable everyone to develop themselves.

Another assumption in the original claim is that people can develop themselves by having a job. This is only partly true in as such when people have a fulfilling job that enables them to develop themselves. Most jobs however are tedious and mindkilling. These jobs could be largely automated where capitalism hasn't already because this is considered not profitable enough. Cutting the working week progressively, starting with a 30 hour week for example (with of course no loss of pay), enables people take life into their own hands.

[CommunityBeliever]

And I'm an example of this I like to do hard jobs, easy ones are boring.

Okay now you have been confused how could it be easy to do something boring all day? :lol:

And how is it hard to do something that you like to do!?! :confused:

[Kwisatz Haderach]

In capitalism, the people who work hardest are poor, and the lazy people are rich. If we had a system where hard workers earned the same as lazy people, then hard workers would actually earn more than they do today.

Now, that's not the whole story, of course, as other comrades pointed out above. But it's a good argument.

[bobroberts]

First of all, laziness is not tolerated when workers are in control of production. If everyone else is working to their potential, they won't tolerate a slacker for very long. That person will be out looking for new employment rather quickly. Workers tolerate laziness because the capitalist employer takes all the profit, regardless, and won't care so long as that persons laziness doesn't increase their own workload or incite the boss to punish everyone collectively.

Second, people won't suffer from lack of having their needs met, and will be free to pursue ways to be productive which suit them. The coercive threat of starvation and homelessness, for example, will be eliminated. This will allow people to transition to jobs they enjoy doing, or at least jobs in which they can demand fair compensation compared to the current system. The surest way to make someone lazy is to force them into a job they don't like under exploitative terms.

If a person likes solving math problems, will they be lazy about doing so? If they like to paint, will they be lazy about painting? If they like designing buildings, will they be lazy about designing buildings? No. Not unless they are forced to do so by circumstances, and on exploitative terms dictated to them by an authority (in this case, a capitalist enterprise). People who do jobs that are undesirable, but necessary, will be able to demand fair compensation for doing so. The causes of laziness will basically be nonexistent, or greatly reduced.

[LOLseph Stalin]

First of all, laziness is not tolerated when workers are in control of production. If everyone else is working to their potential, they won't tolerate a slacker for very long. That person will be out looking for new employment rather quickly. Workers tolerate laziness because the capitalist employer takes all the profit, regardless, and won't care so long as that persons laziness doesn't increase their own workload or incite the boss to punish everyone collectively.

Second, people won't suffer from lack of having their needs met, and will be free to pursue ways to be productive which suit them. The coercive threat of starvation and homelessness, for example, will be eliminated. This will allow people to transition to jobs they enjoy doing, or at least jobs in which they can demand fair compensation compared to the current system. The surest way to make someone lazy is to force them into a job they don't like under exploitative terms.

If a person likes solving math problems, will they be lazy about doing so? If they like to paint, will they be lazy about painting? If they like designing buildings, will they be lazy about designing buildings? No. Not unless they are forced to do so by circumstances, and on exploitative terms dictated to them by an authority (in this case, a capitalist enterprise). People who do jobs that are undesirable, but necessary, will be able to demand fair compensation for doing so. The causes of laziness will basically be nonexistent, or greatly reduced.

Quite a good description actually, but I always found the idea of a lottery to be interesting for the dirty jobs in society nobody wants to do such as cleaning sewers. Of course not very many people want to do that, but it has to be done. The solution? Place names of potential candidates for the job into a lottery. Draw a certain amount and they'll be the ones doing the dirty jobs for a pre-determinded length of time. Once their time is up there would be a new lottery. Seems fair enough to me.

[Tjis]

Quite a good description actually, but I always found the idea of a lottery to be interesting for the dirty jobs in society nobody wants to do such as cleaning sewers. Of course not very many people want to do that, but it has to be done. The solution? Place names of potential candidates for the job into a lottery. Draw a certain amount and they'll be the ones doing the dirty jobs for a pre-determinded length of time. Once their time is up there would be a new lottery. Seems fair enough to me.

The real solution would be to automate them. The reason this hasn't happened yet is because human labor is cheaper, but in a communist society this is no longer an issue.

[ʇsıɥɔɹɐuɐ ıɯɐbıɹo]

but what if someone doesn't work @ all?

It's called Welfare and most capitalist-leaning societies have it. Religious institutions are also known for caring for the sick and infirm. I mean, just because you don't have work doesn't mean there isn't a legit reason, right? Can't drive a truck while in a coma... at least not safely.

[Kyrite]

'He who does not work, shall not eat.' With the exception of the elderly and people who are physically unable to work. This is more directed at the bourgeoisie rather lazy people, but i still think it is relevant.

[mikelepore]

I`m a Communist, but one of the criticism I get frequently is this-

Communism makes lazy people and hard-workers the same profit.

So if everyone gets the same for any difficulty of job, would n`t people pick the easiest jobs before the hard ones. And if so, then wouldn`t lazy people be rewarded for nothing.

The main question is-- Where the incentive in Communism

I am still Communist it`s just this has always been a question mine and my peers.

Pay workers who volunteer to do the hard job two or three times as much hourly income as people who volunteer to do the easy job. Problem solved.

It's the suggestion that is made by some to do away with earning hourly incomes that created your problem in the first place. It's not necessary to create the problem, and if you don't create it then you won't be stuck with it.

[NecroCommie]

People who make such statements are beyond all salvation and below all thought. My advice is to set them on fire.

In addition, My favourite response to that phrase is: "Not true! Lazy people get rewarded for being lazy!"

[robbo203]

Dont forget - communism means a moneyless wageless classless society. Most of the work carried on today in capitalism (in what is called the "formal sector" of the economy) involves occupations that will completely disappear in communism. These superfluous occupations are tied up in one way of another with the maintenance of and operation of the capitalist money-based economy - from banks to pay departmentds to a thousand and one other occupations Estimates vary but most seem to converge on a figure of slightly more than half the total amount of labour employed in the formal sector today will completely disappear in a communist economy.

What will this mean? It will mean an effective doubling of the workforce (and resources) available for socially useful production. Or, to put it another way, we will only have to work perhaps 2-3 days a week on average in a communist society and under conditions vastly more congenial than capitalism can ever provide.

This surely has some relevance to the question of whether people would be lazy or not in a communist society

[*Viva La Revolucion*]

I second what Robbo said.

In a communist society, many occupations won't exist anymore as there won't be any need for them. Take, for example, most of the people in Canary Wharf and in the 'City'. This means that the population as a whole will have reduced hours - some people could even do two jobs. A person could be a doctor and a waitress, or an author and a farmer.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Human beings want to maximize pleasure (or happiness) and minimize pain. Whether or not that entails laziness depends entirely on the individual's character. Mike brought up an overlooked aspect of the perceived problem: socialism trivializes this entire debate, because we could theoretically pay people more for jobs they didn't like. Usually critics of communism are trying to attack your beliefs outright, and not just communism.

As far as an economy based outside of a price system is concerned, free association handles this problem fairly well. Different workers councils will determine for themselves what satisfies their own qualities of "productivity." I imagine by that point most forms of labor are enjoyable anyway.

[robbo203]

Human beings want to maximize pleasure (or happiness) and minimize pain. Whether or not that entails laziness depends entirely on the individual's character. Mike brought up an overlooked aspect of the perceived problem: socialism trivializes this entire debate, because we could theoretically pay people more for jobs they didn't like. Usually critics of communism are trying to attack your beliefs outright, and not just communism.




Well it wouldn't really be socialism if you had to pay people in the first place. It would be capitalism because this presupposes the continuation of the wages system

I just dont think the "lazy person" argument is a credible one. Quite apart from the fact that most work in the formal sector today would disappear in a socialist society - being linked to the meaintenance of the capitalist monetary economy - meaninging that we will only have to work a fraction of the amount of time we do today, there are a large number of other reasons that chip away and collectively demolish this argument completely. Even under capitalism people do all sorts of arduous and dangerous work without payment. In socialism when we will be in control of our conditions and terms of work , work itself will become much more creative and congenial. If necessary, we can automate or abolish those aspects of work we find unpleasant far more readily than we can do today when profit is the overriding consideration. Meaningful activity or work is itself a need quite apart from its consequences in terms of providing us with the means of consumption. Try doing nothing for several days and by the end you will be tearing your hair out and crawling up the wall. With free access to goods and services (with all due respect to my de Leonist comrades!) the only way in which you could meaningfully obtain the esteem of your fellows is through what you put into society and not what you take out of it (conspicuous consumption). The mutual recognition of our mutual interdependence will also permit moral sanctions to come into play , sanctions which are nullfied in a competitive capitalist environment based on individualistic atomised endeavour

No I cannot see the question of work being anything like the great problem it is presented as being by critics of socialism. Probably the main problem is will there be enough work to do - not who is going to do the work in the first place

[RedRise]

"Pay workers who volunteer to do the hard job two or three times as much hourly income as people who volunteer to do the easy job. Problem solved."

I agree with this general idea, but 1st problem solved and another one created; how do we classify 'hard' and 'easy' jobs? And who decides how much more they get paid?
Then; doesn't this bring us back to the capitalist system all over again?:confused:

[robbo203]

"Pay workers who volunteer to do the hard job two or three times as much hourly income as people who volunteer to do the easy job. Problem solved."

I agree with this general idea, but 1st problem solved and another one created; how do we classify 'hard' and 'easy' jobs? And who decides how much more they get paid?
Then; doesn't this bring us back to the capitalist system all over again?:confused:


If you have to pay people it IS capitalism. Generalised wage labour is synonymous with capitalism QED

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

If you have to pay people it IS capitalism. Generalised wage labour is synonymous with capitalism QED

I think it's fairly obvious that milepore meant remuneration with labor credits, not wage labor.

[Invincible Summer]

If workers are in control of their own production, and not producing for their boss to make a profit, they have the incentive to work hard so that society can benefit. The rewards are clear and present, whereas in capitalism you have to wait every few weeks for a paycheck that may or may not be what one expects.

[FreeFocus]

In a communist society, if one chooses not to work, they will be finding ways to provide for themselves and generally living separately, apart from the commune/community. GeneCosta also had a good post earlier.

I don't believe that people should leech. The point of communism is to remove barriers to people's self-realization and full potential, and to build the human community. With a system of communes, people could move freely and find a line of work that they enjoy. If they'd rather just be lazy and not contribute, they shouldn't be allowed to leech off of the work of others, and should provide for themselves - which wouldn't be difficult necessarily - you could go build a house yourself somewhere and hunt or farm if you'd like.

[bcbm]

Its always disheartening to see those on the left talking the same work ethic as the one created by the capitalist bosses some 250 odd years ago. In a communist society we should all be allowed to be as lazy as we want to be and never have to work more than two or three hours a day.

[PRC-UTE]

Its always disheartening to see those on the left talking the same work ethic as the one created by the capitalist bosses some 250 odd years ago. In a communist society we should all be allowed to be as lazy as we want to be and never have to work more than two or three hours a day.

you're confusing communists with hippies. however increases in technology under socialism may bring that about in time.

[bcbm]

you're confusing communists with hippies. however increases in technology under socialism may bring that about in time.

Its entirely possible with modern technology and, really, has probably been possible for some time now. The purpose of society should be to guarantee the most enjoyable lives for all its members (which would certainly include working less) and the fetish for "increased production" and "hard work" is disgusting. There is nothing noble in boring, repetitive and exhausting labor; we can have so much better. The work ethic as we know it was created during the Industrial Revolution to subjugate the new industrial workers, though it had detractors far earlier than "hippies" (brilliant criticism) and many of its initial architects were hardly models of industriousness. Why any communist would uphold the ethics of our class enemy is beyond me.

[spiltteeth]

The very concept of "Leeching" is a dangerous one. And I feel compelling people to work is misguided. I am an artist, and I try to "work" as little as possible so I can labor on my art but, since few people seem to value art that has no commercial potential they see me as some lazy guy who just wants to sit around doodling and having fun. This is why, as many point out, art has been impoverished under much of communism - because all art had to serve a function, have a message, be propaganda - there was no concept of high art.

So. Who gets to decide what is work and what is laziness? :confused:
These are capitalists concepts.

[Lynx]

"Work" under communism would be expanded to include volunteerism and efforts toward self-improvement. Our perception of what constitutes a 'contribution to society' is too narrow.

[bcbm]

I think we should aim for the complete destruction of "work" as a category separate from everyday life.

[otter]

Will man not work in solidarity with fellow man for a common good?
Maybe in a new world the people all work together to create great things and advance humankind.
If something needs doing and you can do it, you do it because there is a need and it helps the cause.

One thing that needs to happen is a change in social thoughts away from the selfish: what do I get/how little can I do, into thoughts of what can I do to help the cause. I don't think this will happen overnight or even over a generation. But instead over a number of generations of being "brainwashed" if you will(if you perceive social behaviour to be taught that is).

[ls]

one word

pisswank

[Gustav HK]

First posted by NecroCommie:

People who make such statements are beyond all salvation and below all thought. My advice is to set them on fire.

Like this?:)

[Misanthrope]

Communism makes lazy people and hard-workers the same profit.



I take an an anarcho-collectivist approach to the workplace. You should be payed for the amount of time you contribute.

[ls]

You shouldn't be "payed" anything in a communist society.

[SHEHATEME]

I have recently had a conversation with my mum who is just about to retire after 40 years of hard work, cleaning, caring and the like. All my life I have watched her get up early work her arse off to make sure she paid the bills on time and that me and my sister had everything she wanted us to have. It pisses me off BIG TIME after all this me and my sister have to watch her worry if she will be able to manage to afford the basics in life, like heating, eating! but because of her situation stupid ignorant people believe that it is her fault and that she is in this situation and could have done something about it, she and many others desreve so much more for what they have put in, while others have never understood the concept of work and do not have to worry. :(

[leveller]

One of the things that Marx believed about human beings is that we live to work
he calls us Homo-Faber.

Consider the unemployed in capitalist society, they dont work for an employer but you'll find that they spend their time doing something that can be considered work from keeping their homes in order, to whitling pieces of wood, looking after relatives, whatever ...human beings as a general rule dont like to be idle as a permanent condition, we have to do something!

In the transistion from capitalism to communism there will be a lot to do, and everyone will have their part to pay according to their ability, a road sweeper isnt going to find himself in contention for a job as a brain surgeon becuase the red flag is fllying over washington square but the road sweeper shouldnt be worse off than the brain surgeon.

[The Idler]

w1Khj7ZHMSo

[The Idler]

On a more serious note, many socialists think that everyone is entitled to share in the earths resources free from toil, William Morris, Paul Lafargue and Bertrand Russell are among them.

[zerozerozerominusone]

T
Communists are the ones that treat the workers well


The way Lenin ans Stalin treated them by murdering upward of 60 million of them? By treating them to empty store shelves and 8 hour lines for stale bread? The way the Chinese murdered millions of them? Or the Khmer Rouge? The Vietnamese? Castro's been really nice to them as well, as I recall.

Can you name a single significant "communist" regime that has treated its workers better than with forced labor, murder, torture, abject terror, and imprisonment unto death?



The incentive in communism is to increase the common good of the human race


That is the claim, the assertion. The reality it quite different.


the incentive in capitalism is to increase the size of the pockets of the few.

Where is your proof of this? Assertion is not proof.

[narcomprom]

I`m a Communist, but one of the criticism I get frequently is this-

Communism makes lazy people and hard-workers the same profit.
being a leftwinger has strongly swapped meanings since the 1840s ;). My great grandmother lived through the russian revolution in ukraine and as she claims the revolution made the workers, indeed, lazy. Before they had 4 hours of sleep, afterwards it were around 7. The work was parted equally back then according to common sense of a few local intellectuals.

it was amusing, she claims, to watch the bourgeois ladies work for the first time in their lifes. :lol: so indeed, it totally unfairly made the hard working bourgeois get the same profit as the lazy proletarians. it even allowed lazy proletarians to taste meat and sweets and to go to cinema which was totally unfair and unjustified because they are so rough and lazy.

the collectivisation thereafter, however, was a desaster. They eradicated the locals and replaced them with absolutely inapt authorities from far away who's only merit was blind conformonism.

that, she claims, led to the infamous Holodomor.

[spiltteeth]

Please back up that the Chinese murdered millions. This is not true.

[Luís Henrique]

First of all, laziness is not tolerated when workers are in control of production. If everyone else is working to their potential, they won't tolerate a slacker for very long.

Usually people who are "working to their potential" are not in control of production. If you overwork yourself 8+ hours a day, when are you going to control the production?

Luís Henrique

[LeninKobaMao]

In a capitalist society people are not out of work for no reason. Most of the time they are forced out of work by the oppressors or with health problems.

But in a communist society the point is to try and find stable jobs for the people who have been forced out of work by the capitalists.

[h9socialist]

This is starting to sound like a forum dedicated to the notion that socialism has a more stringent work ethic than capitalism . . .

HEAVEN FORBID!!!

One of the main problems with capitalism is that people work too much and are brainwashed by the bourgeois protestant work-ethic. All that does is create docile workers! Socialism should create "free time" for human beings. After that people can bicker over whether to call activities and pursuits "work." When a bourgeois lectures about laziness under socialism, he really means that workers can't be exploited for capitalist purposes under socialism -- and that upsets the bourgeois idea of propriety.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

being a leftwinger has strongly swapped meanings since the 1840s ;). My great grandmother lived through the russian revolution in ukraine and as she claims the revolution made the workers, indeed, lazy. Before they had 4 hours of sleep, afterwards it were around 7.

Surely that's a good thing.

[bcbm]

In a capitalist society people are not out of work for no reason. Most of the time they are forced out of work by the oppressors or with health problems.

But in a communist society the point is to try and find stable jobs for the people who have been forced out of work by the capitalists.

"It is to be regretted that a portion of our community should be practically in slavery, but to propose to solve the problem by enslaving the entire community is childish. "

http://struggle.ws/hist_texts/wilde_soul.html

[Led Zeppelin]

Capitalist society atomizes people into classes and subclasses, into a multitude of divisions and subdivisions, into various strata. The "community" as such ceases to exist.

Communism is the antithesis of this. Its opposite.


Under present social conditions it is perfectly clear that the poor man is compelled to be an egotist, and when he can choose, living equally well in either case, he prefers doing nothing to working.
Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/condition-working-class/ch13.htm)

It has been objected that upon the abolition of private property, all work will cease, and universal laziness will overtake us.

According to this, bourgeois society ought long ago to have gone to the dogs through sheer idleness; for those of its members who work, acquire nothing, and those who acquire anything do not work. The whole of this objection is but another expression of the tautology: that there can no longer be any wage-labour when there is no longer any capital.
Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm)

Communism as the positive transcendence of private property as human self-estrangement, and therefore as the real appropriation of the human essence by and for man; communism therefore as the complete return of man to himself as a social (i.e., human) being – a return accomplished consciously and embracing the entire wealth of previous development. This communism, as fully developed naturalism, equals humanism, and as fully developed humanism equals naturalism; it is the genuine resolution of the conflict between man and nature and between man and man – the true resolution of the strife between existence and essence, between objectification and self-confirmation, between freedom and necessity, between the individual and the species. Communism is the riddle of history solved, and it knows itself to be this solution.
Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm)

[h9socialist]

Dear Comrade LeninKobaMao --
The "point" of communist society is to decommodify human labor, NOT simply to find jobs for people tossed out of the capitalist work force. Decommodification of labor means the abolition of the wage system. Labor under these conditions becomes ever more voluntary and in the context of a community free of alienation. The capitalists are the ones who are most worried about job creation, because economic growth and consumerism create the closest thing to stability that capitalism can have -- and it maximizes the amount of surplus labor available for exploitation. The problem for capital is that full employment is in direct contradiction of the capitalist need for a "reserve army" of labor to provide space for future expansion. This is why capitalism likes to define full employment as some level of unemployment (ever hear of NAIRU? Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment -- that's the lowest level of unemployment that is unthreatening to capital. The POINT is not to correct capitalism's failure, but to ABOLISH its contradiction.

[Charles Xavier]

but what if someone doesn't work @ all?

Socialism provides 100% employment, if you don't work you don't eat. Unless they are disabled, a child or retired.

And under socialism, wages are dependant on the type of work preformed, wages are not all the same across the board.

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

Tell them that it is capitalism that rewards people for being lazy. That's the ultimate goal in capitalism... to get so much assets and people working for you that you can live in a mansion and sit by a pool or go golfing all day. Or just get lucky and inherit it from your parents.

[spiltteeth]

Socialism provides 100% employment, if you don't work you don't eat. Unless they are disabled, a child or retired.

And under socialism, wages are dependant on the type of work preformed, wages are not all the same across the board.

I still would like to know who defines work -I'm an artist. My art has no commercial or propaganda value. Would I eat?

What about writers? Who decides whether their books are good enough for the authors to be worthy of being fed.

Capitalism horrifies me because it destroys creativity, which hopefully will flourish under socialism - but not if everyone is doing menial labor 8 hours a day.
In jail there's a saying 'everyones a Picasso in prison'
with so much leisure people find talents they never knew existed-would socialism afford the same kind of freedom and leisure ?

[Misanthrope]

The incentive for the worker? It is similar to in capitalism, to be rewarded and make a living. If you don't work you won't be rewarded, I understand how you think communism is the weak exploiting the strong and well Proudhon and the Republicans are wrong.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I still would like to know who defines work -I'm an artist. My art has no commercial or propaganda value. Would I eat?

What about writers? Who decides whether their books are good enough for the authors to be worthy of being fed.

Capitalism horrifies me because it destroys creativity, which hopefully will flourish under socialism - but not if everyone is doing menial labor 8 hours a day.
In jail there's a saying 'everyones a Picasso in prison'
with so much leisure people find talents they never knew existed-would socialism afford the same kind of freedom and leisure ?

Communism would heavily reduce the amount of work needed to maybe three hours per day. Therefore each person will have loads of time to pursue their creative talents.

[redflag32]

This question is critical because it shows the "pure" socialists up for what they are, utopians. They are not concerned with semi-socialism or state capitalism or anything that goes inbetween capitalism and communism. So when this question is asked they cant use the years inbetween capitalism and communism-were mans attitude to work and society would have been gradually changed-as a way of answering that question. This middle ground doesnt exist for them because it usually includes such epochs as state socialism so they cant use it to explain their utopia of communism.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

This question is critical because it shows the "pure" socialists up for what they are, utopians. They are not concerned with semi-socialism or state capitalism or anything that goes inbetween capitalism and communism. So when this question is asked they cant use the years inbetween capitalism and communism-were mans attitude to work and society would have been gradually changed-as a way of answering that question. This middle ground doesnt exist for them because it usually includes such epochs as state socialism so they cant use it to explain their utopia of communism.

No we are not pure socialists. Just revolutionaries. I think most here would accept that State-Capitalism is counter-revolutionary. We accept a transitionary stage as neccessary as does every Communist, we just realise that certain things will reverse the effects of a revolution and will be counter-productive to our struggle.

[redflag32]

No we are not pure socialists. Just revolutionaries. I think most here would accept that State-Capitalism is counter-revolutionary. We accept a transitionary stage as neccessary as does every Communist, we just realise that certain things will reverse the effects of a revolution and will be counter-productive to our struggle.

Thanks for clearing that up for me:)

[Charles Xavier]

I still would like to know who defines work -I'm an artist. My art has no commercial or propaganda value. Would I eat?

What about writers? Who decides whether their books are good enough for the authors to be worthy of being fed.

Capitalism horrifies me because it destroys creativity, which hopefully will flourish under socialism - but not if everyone is doing menial labor 8 hours a day.
In jail there's a saying 'everyones a Picasso in prison'
with so much leisure people find talents they never knew existed-would socialism afford the same kind of freedom and leisure ?

You'd be judged on your talents and skills and if you were accepted to be a professional artist you could draw or write for a living.

[spiltteeth]

It is still problematic, who would judge if an artist has talent? A council of fellow artists? Besides being elitist it's problematic. After all, there are plenty of artists who now are recognized as genius but at the time were judged to be talentless. The reviews for 'Moby Dick' were terrible, no one thought Melville could write.
And today I look at the crazy art -real feces on a painting, a signed urinal, etc and think - people expect to get paid for this? "This is not art - it's psychosis!" many would say.
Many of the creative work under anarchist, socialist, and communist countries was subordinated to propaganda, social messages, popularizing the philosophy of those in power -in this case the council of artists who were elected to judge weather something is art or not.
Right now it is the market that decides weather one can be a full time artist or not. Usually not.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Splitteeth I agree with you for what is art to one person is not neccessarily art to another, I myself want to be a film maker so I have thought out this in my head myself. It is in my opinion that Communism will serve to maximise each persons creative potential because our mind will be free from the many oppressive domains of media indoctrination. Therefore we will truly be more creative this way and each persons art will be valued. I say each because it is my dream that everyone will participate in art in their free time in a communist society. I do not think professional artists is a good idea as we are all artists.

[pastradamus]

but what if someone doesn't work @ all?

Communism, under Marxist guidelines does not assume people are lazy at all, more to the contrary it assumes the fact that the working class are not in the least bit afraid of a hard days work but rather want better working conditions along with a fairer slice of the pie in the end. Basically, they want a fair share of the production they create - Capitalism does not give them this.

By the people who do not work I believe your talking about what Marx described as "the lumpen proletariat" that is to say that people exist who simply contribute nothing to society and simply live off its gains. Do people like this exist? Absolutely. As Lenin said "he who can work and does not, than neither shall he eat". Now, people with genuine physical or mental illness's who cannot work shall receive support from the state but those who choose not to work will not receive the said benefits.

[spiltteeth]

Unfortunately because of extreme conditions many equate communism/socialism with the laborious long hours of work under Lenin, Stalin, and Mao. However I like to think the ideal, the final end product that we ought to all work toward is portrayed in Chernyshevsky's 'what is to be done' which was a big influence on Lenin.
After all, one doesn't have to be lazy to want to spend as much time as possible with family and friends.
The capitalistic work ethic of 'work for work's sake/character building' is poison. Of course work can be character building, especially when it calls for sacrifice for a higher purpose or truly engages a person.
Also, as Chomsky points out, machines and technology have always been engineered and used to maximize efficiency, under a socialist society they can be engineered to make work more human, creative, and less tedious.
Instead of having an economy that forces men to adapt themselves to its needs, we can adapt it to our own.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Some of the comments made thus far can only be labeled as atrocious.


On a more serious note, many socialists think that everyone is entitled to share in the earths resources free from toil, William Morris, Paul Lafargue and Bertrand Russell are among them.Earthly resources do not equate to the finished product of labor. Those who do indulge in an excess of leisurely activities without contributing their time in productive ways (as determined by the associate/commune) are no better than capitalists. In fact, beyond sharing authoritative control, they're fulfilling the exact same role as capitalists.



Well it wouldn't really be socialism if you had to pay people in the first place.It wouldn't be communism.*


Its always disheartening to see those on the left talking the same work ethic as the one created by the capitalist bosses some 250 odd years ago. In a communist society we should all be allowed to be as lazy as we want to be and never have to work more than two or three hours a day.Join a communist association that agrees with your work ethic. If the productive forces at the time allow for it, great. If not, most humans aren't going to sacrifice their desires just so a few bums can toil for half the alloted amount of time and get just as much.

You cannot dictate that "two or three hours" will be "all" anyone has to contribute. That is not to be determined by anything more than the environment we grow up in.


The very concept of "Leeching" is a dangerous one. And I feel compelling people to work is misguided. I am an artist, and I try to "work" as little as possible so I can labor on my art but, since few people seem to value art that has no commercial potential they see me as some lazy guy who just wants to sit around doodling and having fun. This is why, as many point out, art has been impoverished under much of communism - because all art had to serve a function, have a message, be propaganda - there was no concept of high art.

So. Who gets to decide what is work and what is laziness? :confused:
These are capitalists concepts.

To be frank: that's the reality of the world. A guy can piss in a hole and call it work, but I'm not going to sacrifice my time for his benefit. You don't seem to comprehend that every service and good so far requires humor input. When that is no longer the case we can indeed see "true communism" come into fruition, but until that point occurs (and no, we aren't there yet), expect people to be judgmental with who they share scarce resources with. So long as scarcity is a real hurdle, people will not be free.

[Markie_G]

but what if someone doesn't work @ all?
I know

[spiltteeth]

Some of the comments made thus far can only be labeled as atrocious.

Earthly resources do not equate to the finished product of labor. Those who do indulge in an excess of leisurely activities without contributing their time in productive ways (as determined by the associate/commune) are no better than capitalists. In fact, beyond sharing authoritative control, they're fulfilling the exact same role as capitalists.

It wouldn't be communism.*

Join a communist association that agrees with your work ethic. If the productive forces at the time allow for it, great. If not, most humans aren't going to sacrifice their desires just so a few bums can toil for half the alloted amount of time and get just as much.

You cannot dictate that "two or three hours" will be "all" anyone has to contribute. That is not to be determined by anything more than the environment we grow up in.


To be frank: that's the reality of the world. A guy can piss in a hole and call it work, but I'm not going to sacrifice my time for his benefit. You don't seem to comprehend that every service and good so far requires humor input. When that is no longer the case we can indeed see "true communism" come into fruition, but until that point occurs (and no, we aren't there yet), expect people to be judgmental with who they share scarce resources with. So long as scarcity is a real hurdle, people will not be free.


Well, scarcity right now is not an issue. India burns millions of tons of clothing, America pays people not to grow food, etc I don't know what kind of economic model your talking about, but scarcity is not the issue, distribution is. I know countless people have done the math, but I'll just mention Alan Wood (of the international Marxist Tendency), who shows that if right now in America the salary was capped at 350,000 dollars and everything over was put in a common pool Food, housing, and health care would be free for everybody if every American worked 3 hours a day - and this is without altering technology to serve the worker instead of efficiency.
American's are suffering but not the top -look at the articles in buisnessweek : "What to do with all the money?" Or Steve Forbes (Who has already made 8 million dollars profit this year) : "If this is a recession more of it!" etc etc etc
All this is the ABC's of socialism. You are obviously not Marxist. Your post is utterly bizarre. Of course " that's the reality of the world." we are trying to create a different one. One where productive forces are not used to produce absurd surplus for 2% of the community. Your attitude is selfish, anti-socialist, it is typical capitalist ruling class ideology -"A guy can piss in a hole and call it work, but I'm not going to sacrifice my time for his benefit. "
You sound more redneck than red.

[bcbm]

Those who do indulge in an excess of leisurely activities without contributing their time in productive ways (as determined by the associate/commune) are no better than capitalists. In fact, beyond sharing authoritative control, they're fulfilling the exact same role as capitalists.

I think "leisurely" activities can be just as important, if not more so, than work. Certainly we should seek to minimize the amount of time people spend in any sort of drudgery?


Join a communist association that agrees with your work ethic. If the productive forces at the time allow for it, great. If not, most humans aren't going to sacrifice their desires just so a few bums can toil for half the alloted amount of time and get just as much.

I'm not sure where you got "a few bums" out of me suggesting that everybody should be able to work as little as possible. Speaking of atrocious comments... :rolleyes:

[PRC-UTE]

Its entirely possible with modern technology and, really, has probably been possible for some time now. The purpose of society should be to guarantee the most enjoyable lives for all its members (which would certainly include working less) and the fetish for "increased production" and "hard work" is disgusting. There is nothing noble in boring, repetitive and exhausting labor; we can have so much better. The work ethic as we know it was created during the Industrial Revolution to subjugate the new industrial workers, though it had detractors far earlier than "hippies" (brilliant criticism) and many of its initial architects were hardly models of industriousness. Why any communist would uphold the ethics of our class enemy is beyond me.

Thanks for the history lesson.

So work as we know it will be abolished overnight?

That's great news.

I'm not really a fan of the work ethic at all. I've done quite a bit of hard work in my life which damaged my health mroe than once. I would like to see work hours immediately reduced after a revolution. IIRC, in the past I have read of socialists and the IWW proposing either a six or four hour work day three to four days a week. With all the labour freed up by eliminating useless jobs like marketing, sales, and so on, that should be pretty doable.

However I don't see that work can be abolished in one night due to revolution. In many parts of the world people live in dire poverty, and sorry but to eradicate that requires work.

[bcbm]

So work as we know it will be abolished overnight?

That's great news.

I'm not really a fan of the work ethic at all. I've done quite a bit of hard work in my life which damaged my health mroe than once. I would like to see work hours immediately reduced after a revolution. IIRC, in the past I have read of socialists and the IWW proposing either a six or four hour work day three to four days a week. With all the labour freed up by eliminating useless jobs like marketing, sales, and so on, that should be pretty doable.

However I don't see that work can be abolished in one night due to revolution. In many parts of the world people live in dire poverty, and sorry but to eradicate that requires work.

If I understand the OP, this is a thread about the complaint that communism will make everyone lazy and I would therefore assume it is referring to a communist society, not society the day after The Revolution, or whatever the fuck.

All the same, I think as revolutionaries we could figure out ways to alleviate poverty without making people have to work as hard as they do under capitalism. Our aim is to improve life after all?

[spiltteeth]

Thanks for the history lesson.

So work as we know it will be abolished overnight?

That's great news.

I'm not really a fan of the work ethic at all. I've done quite a bit of hard work in my life which damaged my health mroe than once. I would like to see work hours immediately reduced after a revolution. IIRC, in the past I have read of socialists and the IWW proposing either a six or four hour work day three to four days a week. With all the labour freed up by eliminating useless jobs like marketing, sales, and so on, that should be pretty doable.

However I don't see that work can be abolished in one night due to revolution. In many parts of the world people live in dire poverty, and sorry but to eradicate that requires work.


When asked if World hunger can ever be eliminated, a recent economist responded, "That has nothing to do with economics. That is purley a political question." If those in power wanted it eliminated, which would not be good business in a capitalist society, it easily could be done - we could do it if we owned the means of production and did the distributing.

[The Idler]

Some of the comments made thus far can only be labeled as atrocious.

Earthly resources do not equate to the finished product of labor. Those who do indulge in an excess of leisurely activities without contributing their time in productive ways (as determined by the associate/commune) are no better than capitalists. In fact, beyond sharing authoritative control, they're fulfilling the exact same role as capitalists.

It wouldn't be communism.*

Join a communist association that agrees with your work ethic. If the productive forces at the time allow for it, great. If not, most humans aren't going to sacrifice their desires just so a few bums can toil for half the alloted amount of time and get just as much.

You cannot dictate that "two or three hours" will be "all" anyone has to contribute. That is not to be determined by anything more than the environment we grow up in.


To be frank: that's the reality of the world. A guy can piss in a hole and call it work, but I'm not going to sacrifice my time for his benefit. You don't seem to comprehend that every service and good so far requires humor input. When that is no longer the case we can indeed see "true communism" come into fruition, but until that point occurs (and no, we aren't there yet), expect people to be judgmental with who they share scarce resources with. So long as scarcity is a real hurdle, people will not be free.
If you're working for the owner of a company, you're already providing surplus value so that the owner doesn't have to work.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

If you're working for the owner of a company, you're already providing surplus value so that the owner doesn't have to work.I don't see how that's relevant to my post, but your statement needs a stipend considering many small business owners do in fact perform productive labor.

[The Idler]

I don't see how that's relevant to my post, but your statement needs a stipend considering many small business owners do in fact perform productive labor.
Perhaps I could better describe small business owners as earning some fruits of your labour. So basically the reality is you already sacrifice time for others benefit but in a socialist society you would make this conditional on others desire to work. Being more altruistic in a capitalist system than you would in a socialist system sounds almost like individualism.