what of the man who wont work?

[ContrarianLemming]

in an anarchist society or the final stage of communism, what of the man or women who wont work? what is your opinion on what should be done? the anarchist FAQ (ie: the anarchist bible) gives an anarcho communist idea " communist-anarchists, argue that the lazy should not be deprived of the means of life. Social pressure, they argue, would force those who take, but do not contribute to the community, to listen to their conscience and start producing for the community that supports them."
it goes on to stress thati f thep erson persists they would be given them eans to support themselves
obviously this runs contrary to the leninist views "He who does not work neither shall he eat"

what do you think?

[MarxSchmarx]

It's worth pointing out that this is an even worse problem under capitalism. In fact, in capitalism they are often revered as monastic clergy. The lucky lazy ones lead a life of glamour, like Paris Hilton. However, under communism such parasites will be sneered and condemned and treated with the utmost contempt.




obviously this runs contrary to the leninist views "He who does not work neither shall he eat"The problem with this argument is that even the lazy can eventually become a productive member of society. Thus, to let them starve to death is problematic for society, because it thereby loses a potentially productive member.

It seems rather a simple matter to incentivize work by providing only the bear necessities of subsistence for those who choose not to work. This can take the form of rather unpleasant circumstances, such as providing bread, water, and vitamin pills, only very basic medical care, no access to things like alcohol that can induce further indolence, and communal dorms without any privacy. Some may chose to spend their entire lives doing this.

In any event, such a scheme should be to merely to keep them alive until they decide to become productive members of society. Once they decide to cease being parasites, and such an existence would be pretty miserable between the material conditions cited above and the social mores against it, the full benefits of a communist society should be open to them.

On the whole, any attempt at survival requires some expenditure of effort. Even showing up to, say, the community center to receive one's dole requires effort. Chronic alcoholics and addicts require treatment, but these cannot be forced on people. For those that absolutely refuse to do even that, well, I suppose at some level we have to respect their personal choice, as that is what it is, unlike under capitalism.

[Kukulofori]

http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secI4.html#seci414

[rebelmouse]

you speak about laziness and work in present sense, in capitalism. example:
- in capitalism mother is not given products of society because she take care about child 20 years, in anarchism she work already for community when she do it and she would get everything like other people.
- today, person is not feeling happy in capitalist working market and therefore people are rather lazy. in anarchism people would work what they like and they would do it with will. plus work hours would not be 8 per day than less.
- in any case, even those who don't and don't and don't want to work, they will get products the same as other members of community. there will be enough responsible persons in community and you can't expect from all people to have the same level of responsibility. society will not be poor even if some per cent of society DON'T want to work anything (maybe they will just travel around the globe and they will get food and medical care and cloths, here and there, etc).
in any case, there is no drama about it, drama exist from present standpoint in which people are poor and people think: if someone don't work, community will not have enough produced goods. it is idea from present society, it has nothing with future society.
imagine technology and innovative processes of production, today: new robot means less working places, in anarchism: robotized production means more free time for workers. don't forget that today new technology serves to capitalists to make bigger money in shorter period. in anarchism it would be in service of community and not in service of one capitalist.
therefore, surely: there will be enough products for working and lazy members of community. there is no reason to limit people, just let them to be like they are, I know many people who will die if they don't do anything, even for holiday people do/produce something for their personal needs, so, only in communities which have problems with production, community can try somehow to support people to work, until they/community come to the point that people can relax themselves. in any case, in period after revolution, community would need responsible members very much. but not forever, than just one period.

[mannetje]

I don't have work I'm (i don't know very good how to say this in english) but I'm chronicly ill in my head. not in a heavy kind of way. I have a concentration disorder. so it's very hard for me to focus on hard work I had several jobs in my life, but i'm always cause accidents on the work place. but now I'm doing more low standard volunteers work. about 2 days in the week. (I clean in a retirementhome) and that works out good. I don't have to focus too much and i still feel a bit usefull. but I am ashamed to be hounest that I get money from the state. I feel like a moocher from the government. that i dispize(dispise i don't know to spell that exactly in english(sorry)) but I'm far from lazy I do my best to do what i can. and now i have more time to spend on the left-cause. that's positive.
but I know that I'm totally not lazy. and now I have more time too

[mikelepore]

Give him a shelter with ten square meters of area, and bread and water. He can have more when he has labor credits in his account.

***

"Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society -- after the deductions have been made -- exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labor time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another."

--- Karl Marx, _Critique of the Gotha Programme

[mikelepore]

Social pressure, they argue, would force those who take, but do not contribute to the community, to listen to their conscience and start producing for the community that supports them.

It's poorly thought out claims like that that discredit the left in the eyes of the working class that we need to recruit.

Even if social pressure were enough, we don't have any evidence now that it will be enough. The working class will never adopt any form of collectivist economic system without evidence in advance that it will be viable. People aren't going to risk the collapse of industrial civilization based on some philosophers' untestable speculations about human nature.

There are several reasons to expect that social pressure could not be enough to inspire people to work.

* Unproductive individuals aren't likely to perform no work at all, but rather perform work of an insufficient frequency, which cannot maintain production at a rate that matches consumption levels, causing shortages.

* Unproductive individuals are likely to proudly justify their choices with rationalizations. Some would say that due to stress they "need" at least 45 weeks of vacation per year. Some would say that the people who enjoy the work more should be allowed to have all the pleasure of performing it.

* People would tend to choose hobby-overlap occupations, so we would have have an abundance of musicians, dancers and poets, but not enough mine, mill and factory operators.

* Unless you have FBI-type survelillance, it's probable that no social pressure could be established. The neighbors would see the individual leaving home in the morning, apparently to go to work, while the person actually goes to a tavern or a recreation site.

***

A socialist economic system is certainly possible, and also very necessary. But it can't be based on voluntary labor. The system will have to compensate workers with hourly incomes that they will spend at the store to acquire products. If this isn't the program, then the economic system can't be functional and efficient, and the working class can't be recruited to support a social change in the first place.

[JJM 777]

I think that a Socialist society should give basic means of living freely to everyone, no matter if they work or not. Water to drink, porridge to eat, somewhere a dorm bed to sleep in.

If you want to "have a life", to live in a spacious private apartment, to eat delicious food in restaurants, buy a computer or something else that you want, go to movies etc. -- then you have a motive to do work, to get full benefits of the society, which are reserved for working people.

[Muzk]

This thread makes me vomit, force people to work? Haha damn right.

0 Worth of labour = Get what you need
x2 Worth of labour = Get what you need

From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.

Why would people want to go to cinema when there are people starving on the planet?!?!? Anarchism /= Utopia.
Anyways, jobs at the cinema are useless

Less jobs= Less people have to work, and the work that has to be done to keep the 'standard' of living, for the nation(THE PLANET, NATION WITHOUT BORDERS) can be shared more equally. ~_~

In the socialist phase of class struggle there is a lot of work to be done to feed the people and defend against imperialistic nations.

Gee, anarchists

[ComradeOm]

obviously this runs contrary to the leninist views "He who does not work neither shall he eat"Its worth noting the historical context of this quote. It was targeted not against the 'lazy' but rather at capitalist stockholders who funded their lifestyle through dividends or profits. This comes of course from the view of the bourgeoisie as an inherently parasitic and exploitive class

[spiltteeth]

I've seen threads about this before and I always worry about the definition of work.
I do work, but also I'm an artist. I would love to do artwork fulltime, but who gets to decide if my artwork is 'worthy' of labor credits?
Many advancements in human history, cultural, literary, artistic, musical, even scientific, philosophical, etc have been done outside of a 'work' enviroment.
If it wasn't for the need to work so much creativity would flower!
I've been to prison and with nothing to do people find all sorts of amazing talents.
I've heard some psychologists say that every person is an artist, but society doesn't nurture that talent so it either withers or is neveer discovered.

I truly worry about the status of art in a communist society.
Afterall, when we try to summon up what's greatest in humanity, usually we pick symphonies and Shakespere.
I'm gonna make a thread about it.

[Durruti's Ghost]

In general, everything should be available to everyone, according to the principle of "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."

If it turns out to be absolutely necessary, I suppose a system like the one that MarxSchmarx proposes could be adopted. However, I would only support it if it were--and I cannot stress this point enough--absolutely necessary.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

I don't see this as being much of a problem. People shouldn't have a problem working if it betters the community and their own life rather than the capitalist business owner that profits off their labor. Otherwise I agree with the sentiment the OP quoted from the Anarchist FAQ. Eventually they will realize they need to contribute or they'll most likely not have any friends or social life.