Social parasitism

[ManBearPig]

Hi, I'm new to revleft and have a question for you guys.

I was wondering what would happen to people who don't work through laziness in a socialist/communist/anarchist society. I read that this was a crime in the Soviet Union and I vaguely remember reading that one anarchist (might have been Bakunin or Kropotkin) advocated banishing such people.

The reason I ask is because whenever revolutionary leftism comes up in conversation this is one of the big objections people seem to have. Even ordinary workers seem to be fiercely meritocratic and on the whole they think that a predominantly capitalist mixed economy is better at giving people what they deserve and also incentivising people who would otherwise become parasites on their labour.

There is also research by primatologists which indicates that primates don't like it when others are even equal or greater rewards at their expense, suggesting that there may be an in-built idea of fairness in people.

Thanks in advance for your comments.

[¿Que?]

Well, I was planning on leaving, maybe one last tussle though.

Hi, I'm new to revleft and have a question for you guys.

I was wondering what would happen to people who don't work through laziness in a socialist/communist/anarchist society. I read that this was a crime in the Soviet Union and I vaguely remember reading that one anarchist (might have been Bakunin or Kropotkin) advocated banishing such people.
It depends what you mean by socialist/communist/anarchist society. You may be asking about each separately, so that a socialist would answer about socialism, communist about communism and anarchist about anarchism. On the other hand you may be asking as in terms of a general type of society that has achieved the abolition of private property and (here's the ambiguous part) maybe has reached a certain stage of development. Since this is unclear, I don't see how the question can be answered adequately.

The reason I ask is because whenever revolutionary leftism comes up in conversation this is one of the big objections people seem to have. Even ordinary workers seem to be fiercely meritocratic and on the whole they think that a predominantly capitalist mixed economy is better at giving people what they deserve and also incentivising people who would otherwise become parasites on their labour.
But obviously you are assuming labor to be a means to an end. In communism, it is an end of itself.

There is also research by primatologists which indicates that primates don't like it when others are even equal or greater rewards at their expense, suggesting that there may be an in-built idea of fairness in people.
This seems to confirm Marx to me. Fairness is a value concept, it has no ontological objective status. On the other hand, losing rewards is an objective condition. Therefore, material conditions give way to value judgments as social being becomes social consciousness. A materialist explanation is just as valid as a genetic one.


Thanks in advance for your comments.
No problem.

[MarxSchmarx]

Another talking point is that look at the Queen of England or Paris Hilton under the present arrangement of things.

[vader]

I think that people who are able to work and don't work should be not allowed to gain any goods produced by working people. And that people who aren't able to work should be taken into the care. Just my short, unspecified answer.

[Quail]

I personally don't think that this would be a problem. When we're at a stage where we've acheived a communist society, we will most likely have technology that can do most undesirable work, and people will be free to pursue "work" that they enjoy. I don't see why someone would not want to bother doing things that they enjoy.
I'm not claiming that technology will magically solve things. There will still be a few chores that people will need to do to keep society running, such as taking away rubbish, but most of these will get done anyway, because it's in everyone's interests to keep the environment clean or whatever so someone will step up and do it.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

Don't work; Gulag. It's that simple.

[NecroCommie]

Why would people want other people to be miserable, if they can just get along themselves? The common misconseption in capitalist society is that the reward of others are away from your own rewards, which is obviously bogus. And even if true, I seriously doubt that people would have anything against participatory economy and people who have to work a little less in such an economy. The misconseption is born out of the idea that society needs constant input of hard labor in great amounts or great strifes will take place and fast.

Scarcity, however, is nothing but an artificial product of private ownership over means of production, and the fact that it is combined with monetary economy. That is to say that scarcity is actively sought after in capitalist economy, on behalf of companies and states alike. This is actually admitted by more honest proponents of capitalism, as they proclaim the joys of marketing as a tool to artificially and actively increasing demand. On the other hand it is common for capitalism to actively destroy anything that might increase the production of goods above the wanted level, as increased production means decreased prices. A good example of such actions would be how buildings are destroyed daily because they are "not profitable". This is done even in places of mass homelesness.

When we take this into account, we can see how it is possble to significantly decrease the need for labor by simply re-organizing society and industries. This also reveals that our understanding and disgust of laziness is largely influenced by the organisation of capitalist society. In another society these "freerider" fanatics would propably hold different values.

But even if they didn't, and all I said is false, it would be quite irrelevant. Democratic economy is not dependant on voluntary action, as the collective can easily agree on working standards when the interests of the entire collective are at stake. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parecon

[Palingenisis]

Don't work; Gulag. It's that simple.

For once I agree with you....Only something tells me you may have been being sarcastic.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

For once I agree with you....Only something tells me you have been being sarcastic.

This is why we need a facepalm emote.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Personally I wouldn't hold anything against someone who doesn't want to work. I doubt this would exist other than rarely in a self-managed planned economy due to the level of involvement and importance one can have in relation to the means of production.

The main reason for such a problem in Capitalist society is the fact that someone's contribution is far away from what they receive in return. A Communist society balances this.

[Oswy]

Hi, I'm new to revleft and have a question for you guys.

I was wondering what would happen to people who don't work through laziness in a socialist/communist/anarchist society. I read that this was a crime in the Soviet Union and I vaguely remember reading that one anarchist (might have been Bakunin or Kropotkin) advocated banishing such people.

The reason I ask is because whenever revolutionary leftism comes up in conversation this is one of the big objections people seem to have. Even ordinary workers seem to be fiercely meritocratic and on the whole they think that a predominantly capitalist mixed economy is better at giving people what they deserve and also incentivising people who would otherwise become parasites on their labour.

There is also research by primatologists which indicates that primates don't like it when others are even equal or greater rewards at their expense, suggesting that there may be an in-built idea of fairness in people.

Thanks in advance for your comments.

I would look to the issue of motivation in the context of a society where everyone's real needs are met. Differentials in motivation to work under capitalism are likely to be strongly (indeed centrally) influenced by the exploitative nature of that work and the fact that for most the rewards, via wages, and the alienating nature of labour, don't inspire enthusiasm. If, however, you lived in a society where your real needs were always met regardless, your motivation to work becomes more about personal satisfaction. Yes, there would be free-riders, free-riding by some degree or other, but not doing anything productive at all is too boring for most, so I don't think it would be a major problem. Provided everyone's real needs are met and everyone had an opportunity to participate in the productive process as their abilities permitted, I think you'd be surprised how many people would get up everyday wanting to do work.

[Obzervi]

If someone is unwilling to work it indicates they still retain capitalist inclinations. Reeducation centers could be set up to deal with this problem.

[La Peur Rouge]

Reeducation centers could be set up to deal with this problem.

Re-education centers? As in internment camps?