An interesting argument

[The Man]

Someone I know brought up an interesting argument that I couldn't really answer. She said "If certain people don't want to work, and don't belong to any worker's councils, isn't that a form of Hierarchy because there are Workers Councils that rule you?"


What could I say to this?

[Catmatic Leftist]

No, because that person isn't being exploited. He's just being lazy.

[B0LSHEVIK]

Thats a good one.

Its like asking 'if all workers are truly equal, than what about senority?'

[Impulse97]

It's also highly unlikely that those councils will have much to do with the governance of the population outside of their particular factory. There's really no need for them to. It would just create needless bureaucracy if you have 5-15 separate councils trying to regulate the same area.

I second Paragon's statement. He's not being exploited. Just a lazy ass. Also, if he did not work how is the Workers Council supposed to rule him? He's not part of a business that would have a council so they have no authority over him. Not to mention that if he did work he'd either be on, or have a say in, the council itself. So even though they 'rule' him, his voice is still heard.:hammersickle::che::hammersickle:

[jmpeer]

"What if I don't want to participate?" is an argument that can be applied to any ideology.

Quite simply, the goal is to eliminate, reduce, and improve conditions of necessary work as much as possible through restructuring, automation, mechanization, and other means of facilitation.

If after that and work is pursued voluntarily, there is still necessary work, I doubt there would be much, it would be hard, or it would be so repulsive that people would absolutely refuse to do it.

I would simply rotate and require local democratic assemblies to allocate it amongst themselves, thus eliminating the central authoritarian element, getting the work done, and preventing people from getting stuck with a tedious job for an extensive period of time. Overall, working condition would be a hell of a lot better than they are now.

I would not exclude people from politics simply because they do not contribute to them, like we don't exempt non voters from taxes or laws. Ask your friend to justify why people should be exempt from taxes and laws if they disagree with the decisions being made in our government today. The matter of democracy is not a matter of hierarchy.

[Savage]

Ultra-Apathism will kill us all.

[scarletghoul]

"What if I don't want to participate?" is an argument that can be applied to any ideology.
This. She's talking shit.

[Q]

What would society do with hermits you ask? Let them be I guess?

Because that's what "workers councils" really are: society.

[Oswy]

Someone I know brought up an interesting argument that I couldn't really answer. She said "If certain people don't want to work, and don't belong to any worker's councils, isn't that a form of Hierarchy because there are Workers Councils that rule you?"

What could I say to this?

How would someone justify not wanting to work but still wanting to be provided for by wider society?

[Blake's Baby]

How would someone justify not wanting to work but still wanting to be provided for by wider society?

Well, they could be a capitalist*. They seem to get away with it woithout too much bad conscience (except Engels. Or Robert Owen maybe).

*Substitute for preference, politician; cop; aristocrat; priest; banker; or any other socially parasitic function you could think of. If you were really misanthropic, you could stick pensioners, children or the sick in there too.

[Watermelon Man]

..."If certain people don't want to work, and don't belong to any worker's councils, isn't that a form of Hierarchy because there are Workers Councils that rule you?"

Apart from 'certain people' being lazy, the biggest problem she is suggesting is that under particular conceptions of socialism, freedom of association is limited.

It's the same argument used by conservatives against unions and compulsory unionism - joining a workers organisation might be optional, but in some circumstances you are much worse off if you don't join. In Victoria, for example, high school teachers must join a central union to have their teaching qualification recognised so that they can actually go to work. But membership is not-compulsory. To some, this is effectively denying freedom of association to teachers. And so, in some people's mind, the union exerts an unfair amount of pressure on teachers - join us or don't teach.