Mandatory Labor

[PeacefulRevolution]

One of the ten planks of Communism is, as everyone knows, equal liability to labor. But what happens when someone refuses to work? Are they imprisoned for it? And if not, if society is to continue to provide for this person, then won't more people just refuse to work? How would a free society implement a mandatory labor policy?

I'm asking this in genuine curiosity.

[Stand Your Ground]

I was wondering that too. In my opinion if someone doesn't work, they shouldn't get shit. Unless they are disabled or some other valid reason.

[Qayin]

One of the ten planks of Communism isTen planks =/= communism
Ten planks =/= socialism

I believe and correct me if im wrong that the ten planks were what the communist party should in act once the workers take control. I forget what communist party exactly since the manifesto was just a pamphlet.



But what happens when someone refuses to work? Are they imprisoned for it? And if not, if society is to continue to provide for this person, then won't more people just refuse to work? How would a free society implement a mandatory labor policyHe refuses to work? well at least in our society he wont be homeless, sick, and starving.

I dont think anybody here is for mandatory labor, only for the abolition of the dictatorship of the Bourgeois and there source of wealth they reap from the workers the surplus value while democratizing the workplace.

[Widerstand]

A lot of work can be automated. A lot of other work is pretty enjoyable, at least for some persons, if you're not forced to do it 12 hours a day. And people can probably take turns when it comes to the work that is neither automated nor enjoyable.
I don't see refusal to work as a big issue, and I'm sure case-specific solutions can be found by the community. Most likely you can just ignore it. I doubt all people will stop working. I have enough believe in common sense to hope that they will see the necessity for some minimal amount of work. Prisons or work camps are hardly one, though.

[Zanthorus]

I believe and correct me if im wrong that the ten planks were what the communist party should in act once the workers take control.

The ten planks of the Manifesto are more radical versions of the demands which the democratic petty-bourgeoisie were putting forth at the time. Marx and Engels thought that capitalism had reached it's limits and the ten planks were explicitly put forward as policies which would cause instability if implemented within the framework of capitalist production relations. In order to defend the progressive gains they had made the workers would be forced to make further and further inroads on private property, passing through a process of uninterrupted, permanent revolution to eventually arrive at communism. Engels later repudiated the demands as outdated considering the immense development of industry which occured after the 1848 revolutions and the historical experience of the Paris Commune.

[Animal Farm Pig]

In order to survive, humanity has to do some kind of work. Even in pre-history, people were working-- hunting and gathering food. Starting with the development of slave society and continuing through feudalism and capitalism, we have come to an unnatural system in which some people work, and some people (the slave holders, the feudal lords, the capitalists) do no work but exploit the rest of society. Our aim is to eliminate this exploitation.

[ZeroNowhere]

Engels later repudiated the demands as outdated considering the immense development of industry which occured after the 1848 revolutions and the historical experience of the Paris Commune.
This may have been a reference to the passage in which he rejects the possibility of revolution at the time, but nonetheless the preface repudiating the demands was apparently signed by both Marx and Engels (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/preface.htm).

[fa2991]

Peter Kropotkin presented a pretty clever solution to this problem in "The Conquest of Bread." His basic idea was that free riders - people who refuse to do work - would still be granted the basic necessities by society, but be denied luxuries or social opportunities.

He believed that each person owed society 5 hours labor a day. Special groups and societies would be established for the cultivation of luxuries and the arts - for example, a society dedicated to the production of pianos. You could get a piano if you wanted, but each of these societies would require that prospective members or benefactors work for those five hours a day for a given period of time, usually weeks.

So, in Kropotkin's vision, if you never did anything, you would still be given food, shelter, clothing, etc., but if you want a guitar or a nice TV or a stereo system or some other non-necessity, you would be required to work to gain access to such things.

Plus, communism would make work much more enjoyable and decent. More people would actually enjoy their jobs. Leeches shouldn't be a problem.

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/kropotkin/conquest/ch9.html

[Die Neue Zeit]

As I've noted elsewhere, less than half of the demands are applicable as proper transitional measures today, and even then clarifications need to be made. For example, mandatory labour is actually one of them (ousted bourgeois parasites must be made to work), but here one must define this as "productive and other socially necessary labour." There are many people who spend their careers in unproductive labour, and there needs to be a shift.

[Adil3tr]

You could simply deny him access to luxuries and he would be stuck with the basics. How many people would really be like this if we eliminated the unwanted jobs through technology or sharing them?

[AK]

The objection is known. "If the existence of each is guaranteed, and if the necessity of earning wages does not compel men to work, nobody will work. Every man will lay the burden of his work on another if he is not forced to do it himself." Let us first remark the incredible levity with which this objection is raised, without taking into consideration that the question is in reality merely to know, on the one hand, whether you effectively obtain by wage-work the results you aim at; and, on the other hand, whether voluntary work is not already more productive to-day than work stimulated by wages....

What is most striking in this levity is that even in capitalist Political Economy you already find a few writers compelled by facts to doubt the axiom put forth by the founders of their science, that the threat of hunger is man's best stimulant for productive work. ....

They fear that without compulsion the masses will not work.

But during our own lifetime have we not heard the same fears expressed twice? By the anti-abolitionists in America before Negro emancipation, and by the Russian nobility before the liberation of the serfs? "Without the whip the Negro will not work," said the anti-abolitionist. "Free from their master's supervision the serfs will leave the fields uncultivated," said the Russian serf-owners. It was the refrain of the French noblemen in 1789, the refrain of the Middle Ages, a refrain as old as the world, and we shall hear it every time there is a question of sweeping away an injustice. And each time actual facts give it the lie. The liberated peasant of 1792 ploughed with a wild energy unknown to his ancestors, the emancipated Negro works more than his fathers, and the Russian peasant, after having honoured the honeymoon of his emancipation by celebrating Fridays as well as Sundays, has taken up work with as much eagerness as his liberation was the more complete. There, where the soil is his, he works desperately; that is the exact word for it. The anti-abolitionist refrain can be of value to slave-owners; as to the slaves themselves, they know what it is worth, as they know its motive.

Moreover, Who but economists taught us that if a wage-earner's work is but indifferent, an intense and productive work is only obtained from a man who sees his wealth increase in proportion to his efforts? All hymns sung in honour of private property can be reduced to this axiom.

For it is remarkable that when economists, wishing to celebrate the blessings of property, show us how an unproductive, marshy, or stony soil is clothed with rich harvests when cultivated by the peasant proprietor, they in nowise prove their thesis in favour of private property. By admitting: that the only guarantee not to be robbed of the fruits of your labour is to possess the instruments of labour--which is true--the economists only prove that man really produces most when he works in freedom, when he has a certain choice in his occupations, when he has no overseer to impede him, and lastly, when he sees his work bringing in a profit to him and to others who work like him, but bringing in nothing to idlers. This is all we can deduct from their argumentation, and we maintain the same ourselves.
Also, when many of us talk about "work", we mean alienating labour. That is why work must be as automated as possible.

[Bubbles]

Under socialism there will probably me mandatory labor. Under communism; no. With excepetions... But in the end, it's up to the people of every society to decide how. Personally im not against mandatory labor even though it depends on which context it operates in. We cant sit today writing a ready scheme to a post capitalist society. It's not like capitalism where brought on us with a manual.

[this is an invasion]

I don't know very many people who would go back to work doing the same thing once they ousted their bosses.

[The Guy]

In my opinion, and I'm sure that many fellow comrades share this, people who choose not to work should not expect to be supported by the State. Imprisonment is way too far: it's a choice, not a punishment. However, those leeching off the hard-working citizens of our united world shan't expect anything in return - anything. But that's my opinion.

I quite like the idea of those who wish to settle away from society being able to live off the land and whatnot... but I suppose that could interfere with a few things.

[fa2991]

People who choose not to work should not expect to be supported by the State. Imprisonment is way too far: it's a choice, not a punishment. However, those leeching off the hard-working citizens of our united world shan't expect anything in return - anything. But that's my opinion.

You should run for office in the next election. No far right party in the world could resist nominating you if you run on that platform.

[AK]

Labour should not be made mandatory so much as people need to realise it is a necessity to survive until all possible labour that can be automated is automated. People will strive to achieve that goal. I mean, who doesn't want a society free of work?

[Bubbles]

I don't know very many people who would go back to work doing the same thing once they ousted their bosses.
There will always be a need to produce and distribute things. But work under capitalism, and work under other economic systems is different in many ways. See the distinction between selling your labor power (working) and work being owned my a slave master for example.

[AK]

There will always be a need to produce and distribute things. But work under capitalism, and work under other economic systems is different in many ways. See the distinction between selling your labor power (working) and work being owned my a slave master for example.
Maybe what this is an invasion means is that many workers would not continue to do the same tasks as they did pre-social revolution. Accountants would not be calculating the wages of fellow workers or the profits the business has made. Bank tellers would not be managing other peoples' money. All the labour would be used in the rebuilding of society and the economy and then the maintenance of both - we would not be making burgers in the fast food joint. There are many jobs that people would not have after the abandonment of the monetary system, the market economy, class-based society and wage-slavery.

tl;dr: We would not be using our labour power to provide a profit for the boss - and many jobs today can only ever be filled for that purpose.

But this is all void if someone's revolution only ends up succeeding in bringing a new ruling class to power.