Voluntary Poverty

[Havet]

How would it be handled in a commune? What if someone really is lazy and wants to accept the consequences of being lazy and get the minimum and work the minimum?

Would you discriminate? Kick them out for not doing the fair share? Or insert these people into "rehabilitation" programs?

What if, in an attempt to fix this problem, you create strict "contracts" when people wish to enter the commune, which say something like: You will have to do X during Y hours each week and you will get Z, W, etc in return. And what if these strict contracts reduce the amount of people willing to enter the commune, to a point where it is not sustainable?

Anyone willing to answer these hypothesis and questions is most appreciated.

[danyboy27]

How would it be handled in a commune? What if someone really is lazy and wants to accept the consequences of being lazy and get the minimum and work the minimum?

Would you discriminate? Kick them out for not doing the fair share? Or insert these people into "rehabilitation" programs?

What if, in an attempt to fix this problem, you create strict "contracts" when people wish to enter the commune, which say something like: You will have to do X during Y hours each week and you will get Z, W, etc in return. And what if these strict contracts reduce the amount of people willing to enter the commune, to a point where it is not sustainable?

Anyone willing to answer these hypothesis and questions is most appreciated.

i think people should do their shares, if someone dosnt want to work they have to do something usefull or at least entertaining. painting, looking for children for those who work, i dont know! there is always something to do.

[Havet]

if someone dosnt want to work they have to do something usefull

So would you force them at gunpoint?

I assume you are a right-winger, because you are restricted, and i mention this because i'd rather hear an argument from the real communists out here.

[danyboy27]

So would you force them at gunpoint?

I assume you are a right-winger, because you are restricted, and i mention this because i'd rather hear an argument from the real communists out here.

no, no gunpoint involved here. but someone who dosnt do jack shit for his community shouldnt be surprised if he have great problems finding people around him willing to help him if he in trouble.

the only reason i could find that would justify people not working would be severe physical or mental andicap, even tho its not even an excuse, a lot of mentally disabled and physicly impaired people do work. they cant do everything but they can do something.

and dont call me a right winger, i am a fervent supporter of many social programs including free healthcare, so please stop it, unless of course your definition of right winger include people who disagree with monopolies and privatisation.

[Havet]

and dont call me a right winger, i am a fervent supporter of many social programs including free healthcare, so please stop it, unless of course your definition of right winger include people who disagree with monopolies and privatisation.

why are you restricted then?

[Robert]

So would you force them at gunpoint?

I'd force them out of a community kitchen or shelter if they insisted on sitting on their asses smoking cigarettes all day. Guns? That's a little dramatic. No need really.

[danyboy27]

why are you restricted then?

i asked for it.

i am pretty sure i could be unrstricted beccause i believe a revolution will eventually happen, i just dont build my life around it and dont give a fuck about capitalism or communism to advance, i will exploit both to make my way if necessary.

nevermind, i will probably stay restricted for that last sentence.

aknowledging marx principles dosnt necessary mean using them to make a revolution

[trivas7]

Membership in all intentional communities is contractual. All societies have implicit rules called traditions. To think otherwise is utopian thinking.

[Durruti's Ghost]

Depends on the commune, obviously. However, I think the most sensible route would be to continue to supply the free-riders with the necessities of life, but to bar them from access to luxury commodities and subject them to social ostracism.

[RGacky3]

What if someone really is lazy and wants to accept the consequences of being lazy and get the minimum and work the minimum?

Thats fine, but empirical evidence shows that it would'nt really be a problem.


Membership in all intentional communities is contractual. All societies have implicit rules called traditions.

Yeah, but its non systemic and fluid, its called culture.

I really don't think this would be a problem at all, there is no evidence (although there is evidence to the contrary) that this would be an issue.

[danyboy27]

Thats fine, but empirical evidence shows that it would'nt really be a problem.
.

and that the part that i want more detail :D

[Radical]

Counter Revolutionaries that refused to work would be jailed indefinitely. Forced Labour would be a consideration. You have to realise that in Communism people are working for the collective. They are working not for themselves but for the whole of society.

I doubt anybody would refuse to work at all. Though there maybe be some Individualist's that hate the thought of helping others over themself.

History shows that this isen't really a problem

[danyboy27]

Counter Revolutionaries that refused to work would be jailed indefinitely. Forced Labour would be a consideration. You have to realise that in Communism people are working for the collective. They are working not for themselves but for the whole of society.

I doubt anybody would refuse to work at all. Though there maybe be some Individualist's that hate the thought of helping others over themself.

History shows that this isen't really a problem

wow.

do you actually believe everything will work your way after the revolution?
a bit prematured perhaps?

[Durruti's Ghost]

Counter Revolutionaries that refused to work would be jailed indefinitely. Forced Labour would be a consideration.

Not in my commune. We're fighting to end forced labor, not to institute it.

[Radical]

wow.

do you actually believe everything will work your way after the revolution?
a bit prematured perhaps?

I believe that most people would rather work voluntary rather than be jailed or forced to work. Especially Capitalists.

[danyboy27]

I believe that most people would rather work voluntary rather than be jailed or forced to work. Especially Capitalists.


you dont understand.

what make you think that peoples will be submissive to the laws imposed by you goon squad after they will get rid of the governement good squad?

[New Tet]

First let's abolish the system that causes INVOLUNTARY poverty. Then, perhaps, we'll deal with the question of voluntary poverty, shall we? One thing before the other, gentlemen.

[Radical]

you dont understand.

what make you think that peoples will be submissive to the laws imposed by you goon squad after they will get rid of the governement good squad?

I think Capitalist's will be submissive because its in their intrests to be submissive. Capitalists are Individualists. All they care about is theirself and their family. Therefore they will do whatever is neccessary to provide for them. There will be people that refuse to work. However, I think before the end they will conform.

Though I think there will be difficulties, as there was with the Kulaks. As I said, forced labour I think is probably the best option. However I think the Soviet Union were very lenient with the Kulaks, considering they caused the deaths of millions of innocent people.

[Havet]

I think Capitalist's will be submissive because its in their intrests to be submissive. Capitalists are Individualists. All they care about is theirself and their family. Therefore they will do whatever is neccessary to provide for them. There will be people that refuse to work. However, I think before the end they will conform.

Though I think there will be difficulties, as there was with the Kulaks. As I said, forced labour I think is probably the best option. However I think the Soviet Union were very lenient with the Kulaks, considering they caused the deaths of millions of innocent people.

The cognitive dissonance is amazing

You oppose the current system because workers are forced to work to survive.

You propose a system were all workers are forced to work for a common good.

The goals differ, the means remain the same. Were they (the means) not what you were opposing in the first place?

[Radical]

The cognitive dissonance is amazing

You oppose the current system because workers are forced to work to survive.

You propose a system were all workers are forced to work for a common good.

The goals differ, the means remain the same. Were they (the means) not what you were opposing in the first place?

Why should I feed somebody that would rather let millions die?

Take the Kulak situation for example. - Something most Communists agree on. Even Trotsky advocated forced-labour.

[Havet]

Why should I feed somebody that would rather let millions die?


That's my point - don't have them in the commune in the first place. Kick them out. Allow them to leave, and to make sure the conditions of them being there are well understood. Otherwise, your system will be the same as the status quo.

[Durruti's Ghost]

Why should I feed somebody that would rather let millions die?

Take the Kulak situation for example. - Something most Communists agree on. Even Trotsky advocated forced-labour.

So a few people refusing to work is going to cause millions to die? Riiight...

The kulaks should have been expropriated and "their" land turned over to the peasants they were exploiting. In other words, the ability to cause millions to die should have been taken from them. However, they should NOT have been sent to forced-labor camps after this happened.

[Muzk]

You oppose the current system because workers are forced to work to survive.

You propose a system were all workers are forced to work for a common good.

The goals differ, the means remain the same. Were they (the means) not what you were opposing in the first place?
At least there are no more super rich people you have to fight against.




You have to look at this from a different point of view -

Please note that this is about the excuse of LAZYNESS. Not mental/physical disabilities.
Current system:

You are forced to work, you are forced not by slaveowners but the system itself to work so you survive. You CAN technically be lazy and do nothing, but you won't get anything (or, in some social-democratic states, a little) in return.

Commune/Communism:
Lazyness is not an excuse. You do what you can and you get what you need. So, what are you going to do with the lazy? You give them no choice. If there is no choice, we CAN see it as forced - though don't we all agree that LAZYNESS itself is a bad thing?

Anyways, there will always be those individuals that don't want to do anything - the difference is, they are individuals, and as such you can always talk to them, as someone said before, some kind of "rehabilitation program" is always possible. But, once the means of production are shared amongst everyone, don't you think it's possible to give them a little so they can at least survive+keep up a... life standard so they don't live in a horrible place with bad air/bad healthcare? Of course they should also get the possibility to educate themselves, since education is something else than being lazy and sitting infront of the TV



How would it be handled in a commune? What if someone really is lazy and wants to accept the consequences of being lazy and get the minimum and work the minimum?A small gear needs a small amount of oil.
I don't think it matters much. But if someone does nothing, despite all the subjective 'hatred' some people have against them, they should get a minimum too, just so they can survive - and maybe some day work for their part.


Heh, all this sounds a bit right-wing, but isn't that what the right wingers say about communism? Noone wants to work because you get nothing? Giving the lazy the same as the workers is wrong, there is no alternative to giving them no choice. Or maybe someone knows one?

[New Tet]

The cognitive dissonance is amazing

You oppose the current system because workers are forced to work to survive.

You propose a system were all workers are forced to work for a common good.

The goals differ, the means remain the same. Were they (the means) not what you were opposing in the first place?

Unlike capitalism, socialism proposes to reconcile the common good with the individual good by making the productive means the property of society, democratically managed by the people.

People will always need and want to do something useful for themselves and others; that will never change. But under socialism, where everyone will have a voice and a vote in all social aspects of production and distribution people will feel as if they are empowered to influence the course of their own lives and of their communities.

[danyboy27]

I think Capitalist's will be submissive because its in their intrests to be submissive. Capitalists are Individualists. All they care about is theirself and their family. Therefore they will do whatever is neccessary to provide for them. There will be people that refuse to work. However, I think before the end they will conform.

Though I think there will be difficulties, as there was with the Kulaks. As I said, forced labour I think is probably the best option. However I think the Soviet Union were very lenient with the Kulaks, considering they caused the deaths of millions of innocent people.

so, if i understand you, you think an elite will be forced to threaten the whole population to work, including capitalist by menacing them from execution or life inprisonnement?

seriously, i fail to see how communism will be enjoyable on this perspective unless of course you want to be part of that elite.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Why should I feed somebody that would rather let millions die?

Take the Kulak situation for example. - Something most Communists agree on. Even Trotsky advocated forced-labour.

If you support slavery you are not a Communist. That simple.

Your a fucking joke.

[Kamerat]

The way to deal with voluntary poverty is to give all people the opportunity to work and get their full value of their labour if they live in a socialist society/commune, or take what they need from the commune storage if they live in a communist society/commune. If people dont want to contribute to the society/commune they would still get their full value of their labour (0 labour = 0 value of labour) if they live in a socialist society/commune, or they would not be able to take what they need if they live in a communist society/commune.

[Havet]

Unlike capitalism, socialism proposes to reconcile the common good with the individual good by making the productive means the property of society, democratically managed by the people.

People will always need and want to do something useful for themselves and others; that will never change. But under socialism, where everyone will have a voice and a vote in all social aspects of production and distribution people will feel as if they are empowered to influence the course of their own lives and of their communities.

Yes I know. I was not arguing against socialism. I was arguing against the apparent State-socialism proposed by Radical. Since statism is irrational (http://boredzhwazi.blogspot.com/2007/01/archoexceptionalism.html), his proposal made no sense.

[trivas7]

Counter Revolutionaries that refused to work would be jailed indefinitely. Forced Labour would be a consideration. You have to realise that in Communism people are working for the collective. They are working not for themselves but for the whole of society.

All tinpot dictators speak thusly.

[Radical]

If you support slavery you are not a Communist. That simple.

How do I support slavery genius?

Are you trying to say because I support forced labour in extreme situations I'm not a Communist? Because if your saying that you're also saying Trotsky, Stalin and Lenin aren't Communist either. Work that out.

Forced Labour for those that exploit is not Anti-Communism.

" Ruthless war on the kulaks! Death to them! Hatred and contempt for the parties which defend them-the Right Socialist-Revolutionaries, the Mensheviks, and today's Left Socialist-Revolutionaries! The workers must crush the revolts of the kulaks with an iron hand, the kulaks who are forming an alliance with the foreign capitalists against the working people of their own country."
("Comrade Workers, Forward To The Last, Decisive Fight!" August 1918, in Lenin, V.I. Collected Works. Vol. 28. Moscow: 1965., pp. 53-57.)

"The kulaks are the most brutal, callous and savage exploiters, who in the history of other countries have time and again restored the power of the landowners, tsars, priests and capitalists. The kulaks are more numerous than the landowners and capitalists. Nevertheless, they are a minority..."
"There is no doubt about it. The kulaks are rabid foes of the Soviet government. Either the kulaks massacre vast numbers of workers, or the workers ruthlessly suppress the revolts of the predatory kulak minority of the people against the working people’s government. There can be no middle course. Peace is out of the question: even if they have quarrelled, the kulak can easily come to terms with the landowner, the tsar and the priest, but with the working class never."

[danyboy27]

How do I support slavery genius?

Are you trying to say because I support forced labour in extreme situations I'm not a Communist?

i dont think someone here actually mentionned extreme situation.

w where talking about every day work.

[Pogue]

How do I support slavery genius?

Are you trying to say because I support forced labour in extreme situations I'm not a Communist? Because if your saying that you're also saying Trotsky, Stalin and Lenin aren't Communist either. Work that out.

Forced Labour for those that exploit is not Anti-Communism.

" Ruthless war on the kulaks! Death to them! Hatred and contempt for the parties which defend them-the Right Socialist-Revolutionaries, the Mensheviks, and today's Left Socialist-Revolutionaries! The workers must crush the revolts of the kulaks with an iron hand, the kulaks who are forming an alliance with the foreign capitalists against the working people of their own country."
("Comrade Workers, Forward To The Last, Decisive Fight!" August 1918, in Lenin, V.I. Collected Works. Vol. 28. Moscow: 1965., pp. 53-57.)

"The kulaks are the most brutal, callous and savage exploiters, who in the history of other countries have time and again restored the power of the landowners, tsars, priests and capitalists. The kulaks are more numerous than the landowners and capitalists. Nevertheless, they are a minority..."
"There is no doubt about it. The kulaks are rabid foes of the Soviet government. Either the kulaks massacre vast numbers of workers, or the workers ruthlessly suppress the revolts of the predatory kulak minority of the people against the working people’s government. There can be no middle course. Peace is out of the question: even if they have quarrelled, the kulak can easily come to terms with the landowner, the tsar and the priest, but with the working class never."

I would indeed argue that Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin were clearly not communists, as shown by their behaviour and policies, which were state-capitalist.

I don't see how the forced labour of the USSR was compatible with socialism. It was implemented from the top down. For example Trotsky advocated the miltiarisation of labour and argued because the USSR was a 'socialist state' it could basically tell a worker what to do wherever. This explains Trotsky's implementation of dictatorial control over the working class on say, the Russian railroads.

[OneNamedNameLess]

Was it Bukunin or Kropotkin who stated that people would have to work a little to earn their share? I'm sorry that this post is not constructive and rather naive as I am not completely clued up on Anarchist theorists. Basically, I believe that those who do not work voluntarily and therefore do not contribute to production in any way should be persuaded to work in order to receive what they require.

[danyboy27]

somebody need to tell me why dictator have that fetish for the train and railroad.

[red cat]

I think Capitalist's will be submissive because its in their intrests to be submissive. Capitalists are Individualists. All they care about is theirself and their family. Therefore they will do whatever is neccessary to provide for them. There will be people that refuse to work. However, I think before the end they will conform.

Though I think there will be difficulties, as there was with the Kulaks. As I said, forced labour I think is probably the best option. However I think the Soviet Union were very lenient with the Kulaks, considering they caused the deaths of millions of innocent people.

You are confusing socialism with communism. Communism will start only after every counter revolutionary force has been crushed in every part of the world by the dictatorship of the proletariat. This includes elimination of capitalist economy, politics and culture. Thus the social factors which lead a person to place his own interests before those of the society won't be there anymore. Moreover, unlike now, no working person would be deprived of anything. Under these circumstances, if someone refuses to work, the only thing we would have for him is psychotherapy.

[Muzk]

somebody need to tell me why dictator have that fetish for the train and railroad.

They need a route to GTFO when things go boom.

Didn't work for Hitler though...

[danyboy27]

You are confusing socialism with communism. Communism will start only after every counter revolutionary force has been crushed in every part of the world by the dictatorship of the proletariat. This includes elimination of capitalist economy, politics and culture. Thus the social factors which lead a person to place his own interests before those of the society won't be there anymore. Moreover, unlike now, no working person would be deprived of anything. Under these circumstances, if someone refuses to work, the only thing we would have for him is psychotherapy.

why do you seek destruction?

[Muzk]

why do you seek destruction?

He probably thinks any anti-communists, involving reactionaries, right wingers etc would hinder the movement, and should therefore be eliminated.
But his text doesn't clearly show this


after every counter revolutionary forceThis includes people? But anyways, he's right about the 'crushing' of any capitalist countries, communism will never be able to cooperate with capitalism

[Havet]

Basically, I believe that those who do not work voluntarily and therefore do not contribute to production in any way should be persuaded to work in order to receive what they require.

How will this "persuasion" be done?

[RGacky3]

Communism will start only after every counter revolutionary force has been crushed in every part of the world by the dictatorship of the proletariat. This includes elimination of capitalist economy, politics and culture. Thus the social factors which lead a person to place his own interests before those of the society won't be there anymore.

Just to be sure, communism means, a stateless and classless society, its not a mystical magical land, and theres not a specific formula for it.


and that the part that i want more detail http://www.revleft.com/vb/voluntary-poverty-t116304/revleft/smilies/biggrin.gif

In every anarchist society in the past, which was close to communism (I would argue close enough to call it that, but most would disagree), people not working was never an issue, infact they were more productive, the most famous example being anarchist spain, that actually produced more than the other areas dispite no financial foreign aid, and dispite being attacked by everyone.

Also theres the example of those who are rich enough to not work, but choose to do so anyway, anything.

Then we have the example of social democracies, many, such as the country I live in now, you don't need to work really, if you'd like to, the state would take care of you 100%, however in this country unemployment is well below the rest of the world, and productivity per worker is extreamly high, which shoots the "lazy human nature" argument out the window.

The fact is this argument is pointless.

People simply not wanting to be productive goes against human nature, so if it existed it would be the a rare exception.

[Muzk]

which shoots the "lazy human nature" argument out the window.

The fact is this argument is pointless.


Don't right wingers say that it's human nature to be greedy and strive for more, more, more? Those two fuck each other

[RGacky3]

Don't right wingers say that it's human nature to be greedy and strive for the best possible outcome? Those two fuck each other

Who says being lazy and unproductive is the best possible outcome?

[Havet]

if it existed it would be the a rare exception.

I know it would be a rare exception. The question was: what to do exactly to this exceptions, which may or may not be rare (depending on the amount of pissed off capitalists that'd appear at the commune).


First let's abolish the system that causes INVOLUNTARY poverty. Then, perhaps, we'll deal with the question of voluntary poverty, shall we? One thing before the other, gentlemen.

I am perfectly aware that is is FAR more important to tackle involuntary poverty now. This thread was more a theoretical question rather than an important issue who needs urgent attention.


Who says being lazy and unproductive is the best possible outcome?

Indeed, most of the times it is in one's self-interest to be productive and active, instead of lazy and unproductive. But that does not mean there will be exceptions, and those are the ones I am concerned about, in case there might exist conditions which make these exceptions increase in number dramatically.

[New Tet]

[...]I am perfectly aware that is is FAR more important to tackle involuntary poverty now. This thread was more a theoretical question rather than an important issue who needs urgent attention.[..]

Where I come from it's called mental masturbation. What's it called in your neck o' the woods?

[Ele'ill]

So. I think that certain people shut down when given certain tasks to complete. They need to be given (by a 'career counselor' type) jobs that will fit their aptitude. If they want to paint all day and not work then offer them a job assignment to do something for 'the common building entry-way arch east'.


Just kidding they should be slaughtered because they're useless meat.

:rolleyes:


:blink:

[RGacky3]

I know it would be a rare exception. The question was: what to do exactly to this exceptions, which may or may not be rare (depending on the amount of pissed off capitalists that'd appear at the commune).

You do nothing. It would be rare, there arn't that many caitalists to begin with and the vast majority of them I doubt would be happy sitting on their ass doing nothing.


But that does not mean there will be exceptions, and those are the ones I am concerned about, in case there might exist conditions which make these exceptions increase in number dramatically.

Like what conditions? Also there might be exceptions but you have that problem NOW, and I think that it is a worse problem now.

So you just let them go, they can use the reasorces like everyone else, since it would'nt be a problem theres no reason to treat it like one.

[bcbm]

This thread is full of maniacs.


though don't we all agree that LAZYNESS itself is a bad thing?

Um, no, we don't. I don't see any reason to be super work-focused if there is no real reason to be. I, and I think most people, would like to work a whole lot less and have the time and resources to do what we want.

[Havet]

Where I come from it's called mental masturbation. What's it called in your neck o' the woods?

It's called: thinking of hypothetical scenarios that have a high chance of occurring and asking for opinions on the matter, expecting those who think such matter is mental masturbation to not post at all.

[Jazzratt]

If someone is incorrigbly lazy and just can't be arsed to do anything for the community the community shouldn't be arsed to help them. If they wish to live outside and eat scraps rather than do even the bare minimum required of them then all power to them; no skin off anyone elses nose and we don't have to resort to forced labour and other fucking insane "solutions".

[Havet]

If someone is incorrigbly lazy and just can't be arsed to do anything for the community the community shouldn't be arsed to help them. If they wish to live outside and eat scraps rather than do even the bare minimum required of them then all power to them; no skin off anyone elses nose and we don't have to resort to forced labour and other fucking insane "solutions".

I agree, your solution sounds the most reasonable so far: do not give products/services to those who contribute zero to creating any other product/service.

[danyboy27]

If someone is incorrigbly lazy and just can't be arsed to do anything for the community the community shouldn't be arsed to help them. If they wish to live outside and eat scraps rather than do even the bare minimum required of them then all power to them; no skin off anyone elses nose and we don't have to resort to forced labour and other fucking insane "solutions".

sound fair to me