How to deal with an unproductive Citizen?

[Révolutionnaire Acadien]

As I am relatively new to leftism, and in the process of looking past my former reactionary viewpoints on many issues, I was wondering from you more seasoned and well read comrades out there on how to deal with a hypothetical unproductive Citizen. Not someone who can't work, but who is willingly lazy and unwilling to contribute. Do they simply just get left out to dry and starve, i.e. if you don't put in you can't take out, are they given discipline until they decide to work? What is the commonly accepted MO with dealing with such a problem?

[Seresan]

I bet there are tons of different beliefs on this... but mine is that they should be re-habilitated and re-educated. Of course, opponents to it would call it conditioning and brainwashing. I don't deny that, but brainwashing for the good of the whole surely isn't such a bad thing.

[Column No.4]

They starve. You have to make a contribution to society, you should want to make a contribution to society.

[Dzerzhinsky's Ghost]

I advocate the method of rehabilitation/reeducation but when it gets down to it, you either work or you starve; you either contribute to the whole or you're alienated from it.

[RichardAWilson]

"He who doesn't work, doesn't eat."

I subscribe to Market-Socialism, which means that the same incentives to work (under capitalism) will remain.

The difference is that he who does want a full-time job will have a full-time job and he who wants to have a voice at work will have a voice at work. He who doesn't work (who is born into wealth, living off inheritance checks, profiteering, etc) will have to work.

There will, of course, be specialized counseling and rehabilitative programs for those suffering from mental disabilities. (Even though the elimination of social-alienation, joblessness, homelessness and war will lead to fewer and fewer such cases).

[Klaatu]

Numbers 18:31
You may eat it in any place, you and your households, for it is your reward for your work in the tabernacle of meeting.

Isaiah 65:22
They shall not build and another inhabit; They shall not plant and another eat; For as the days of a tree, so shall be the days of My people, And My elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands.

2 Thessalonians 3:8
nor did we eat anyone’s bread free of charge, but worked with labor and toil night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you,

2 Thessalonians 3:10
For even when we were with you, we commanded you this: If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat.

[La Peur Rouge]

I don't think denying a person food will show people that we all have to work together for society. If someone is making the decision not to work the only reason that I could think of is that they are opposed to socialism. If so, why let them starve? It's what they want, to prove to themselves that socialism doesn't work. Instead, why not let them live life in a communist society?

[Dumb]

If society is such that somebody wouldn't want to contribute to it, then the burden falls on society to figure out why this is so. Pinning such problems to simple matters of personal responsibility are no less reactionary than (for example) the complaints about "welfare queens" in the 1980s. (And 1990s. And today.)

EDIT: "ARE"! "ARE"! NOT "OR"!

[Tjis]

To answer your question, you should first understand why people choose to be unproductive right now.
Capitalist society makes work an unpleasant thing. Each day workers have to wake up early to go to a job they care little about, work with tools they do not own and using a work procedure they do not control. This is because work is controlled by capitalists whose goal is to make a profit. A worker has little choice in the matter. When a choice must be made between a cheap tool or a safe tool for example, the capitalist is far more likely to choose cheap, even though the worker would probably prefer safe.

The only reason people put up with this is because they have to. Having no property of their own, their only means of livelyhood is to sell their labor-power, or to resort to crime. But in some countries there's another option which is to live off welfare. Welfare gives one a little bit more control over their lives than a job would. Though a job provides one with an income that is higher than welfare is likely to, welfare gives a person a lot more time to enjoy the few things they do have.

So it's not too surprising that there are people who, when given the choice between work or welfare, choose welfare.

But now let's consider communism.
In a communist society, work is radically different. Instead of a capitalist deciding the shape of work based on their profit motive, work is shaped directly by the workers who do so out of self-interest. They'll generally try to make their workplace healthy, their tools safe and the actual work pleasant. Instead of production being about profit, production would be about fulfilling the needs of the producers.

Such a society could easily provide each and every person with the bare necessities, such as food and clothes. Even if a part of society was unproductive, there'd be no reason to limit access to these neccesities, or anything else that can be produced in abundance.
So would that lead to lots of people deciding to be idle? I highly doubt it. As I stated earlier, the current reason to not work is quite simply that living on welfare can provide a better quality of life than working. This is because work is controlled by the capitalist whereas free time is controlled by oneself. But in a communist society, both work and free time would be controlled by oneself, for the benefit of oneself.
By not working, a person robs themselves of the opportunity to shape the world around them and make their lives better in a way they couldn't possibly do by themselves. They wouldn't have any say in what is produced, or how it is produced. Instead they'd have to live on the handouts of society and have much less control over their lives than they would have if they worked.

In short, when one is guaranteed of a livelyhood, in capitalism not working is preferred over working. But in communism, working would generally be preferred over not working.

Now to really answer your question, in my opinion everything that can be produced in abundance should be available to all, including the idle. The distribution of everything that is not available in abundance should be under democratic control of the producers (the idle should have no say). This way, those that are willingly unproductive would do no harm, and those that are unwillingly unproductive would have the opportunity to develop themselves to become productive without having to fear for their lives.

[Klaatu]

My niece (who holds a degree in theology) had pointed out Thessalonians to me. (If one doesn't work, one doesn't eat)

I think she is taking this quite literally, but I explained that if one does not work, one will not earn money. And without money, one cannot afford to buy food to eat. But to consciously deny food to a starving person is not the real point of the verse at all.

It just means that people must work. Sloth is one of the Seven Deadly Sins.

[Niccolò Rossi]

LOL 'Citizen'

Nic.

[Tenka]

As I am relatively new to leftism, and in the process of looking past my former reactionary viewpoints on many issues, I was wondering from you more seasoned and well read comrades out there on how to deal with a hypothetical unproductive Citizen. Not someone who can't work, but who is willingly lazy and unwilling to contribute. Do they simply just get left out to dry and starve, i.e. if you don't put in you can't take out, are they given discipline until they decide to work? What is the commonly accepted MO with dealing with such a problem?
Do you mean after revolution or before? Today it's obvious: no work, no eat (except by charity, possibly family members who work and scant social provisions by bourgeois government).
In a communist society, I'd hope we'd take the phrase "to each according to their need" at face value and provide enough food to live off of to everyone.... If anything, not working would limit ones ability to obtain some novelty or luxury items, maybe. Food, water and housing are not things I can see us denying anyone in a communist society.

[Seresan]

If anything, not working would limit ones ability to obtain some novelty or luxury items, maybe. Food, water and housing are not things I can see us denying anyone in a communist society.

FINALLY someone says that. Everyone else seems to be treating food and water as luxuries, even though that is the mindset that communism should be fighting against.

[Column No.4]

FINALLY someone says that. Everyone else seems to be treating food and water as luxuries, even though that is the mindset that communism should be fighting against.

No one is treating food and water as luxuries, were simply saying that you cant reap all the rewards of the revolution without contributing something to it. We want fair work, not no work.

[Tenka]

They starve. You have to make a contribution to society, you should want to make a contribution to society.

No one is treating food and water as luxuries, were simply saying that you cant reap all the rewards of the revolution without contributing something to it. We want fair work, not no work.
This is workerism and not communism.
What of people who are incapable of work? People who consciously refuse to work despite being capable are actually quite rare, and would be even more so with the parasitic Capitalist class (which largely cheats us out of the fruits of our labour, and is thus demoralising) abolished.

[Zealot]

It's called the gulags son.

No seriously, even now with shit working conditions and capitalism, most people still work. You can only be unproductive if everything is handed to you, which is hardly ever the case unless you're royalty, so "From each according to his ability". Even if basic necessities of life were handed over to people they would still want to work for luxury items, which have almost become a necessity in the modern world (e.g internet). Unless they want to live quite a boring day to day life, people are going to want to work. Ideally, work would become a pleasurable activity and unlike capitalism, people would actually do what they want to do as a job, rather than what they have to do.

[Column No.4]

Its simple, if you want to eat, drink and have a roof over your head you have to contribute to the revolution. Now if youre incapable of working due to injury or something and there is absolutely no way you can contribute, which is highly unlikely, then you should be taken care of.

[Tenka]

Its simple, if you want to eat, drink and have a roof over your head you have to contribute to the revolution. Now if youre incapable of working due to injury or something and there is absolutely no way you can contribute, which is highly unlikely, then you should be taken care of.
Ah yes, so the wheelchair-bound had better find a job that makes use of their hands, or anything that they won't need their legs for. Otherwise we're taking their luxury chair, right? They have to contribute in some way.... :rolleyes:
Are you a communist?

[Column No.4]

Ah yes, so the wheelchair-bound had better find a job that makes use of their hands, or anything that they won't need their legs for. Otherwise we're taking their luxury chair, right? They have to contribute in some way.... :rolleyes:
Are you a communist?

I never said they had to use their hands, one can contribute through knowledge.

[humdog]

I don't see why it would be harmful to allow a welfare state to exist within the paradigms of a socialist or communist society.

[Taikand]

Ah yes, so the wheelchair-bound had better find a job that makes use of their hands, or anything that they won't need their legs for. Otherwise we're taking their luxury chair, right? They have to contribute in some way.... :rolleyes:
Are you a communist?

Giving a disabled person a job also has social value.If you were disabled you wouldn't want to feel like a burden, you would want to help as much as you can.Am I right?

[Column No.4]

I don't see why it would be harmful to allow a welfare state to exist within the paradigms of a socialist or communist society.

I dont think it would either but i think people should want to contribute, help revolutionize their liberated country. Some people here seem to think requiring able bodied people to contribute if they are going to reap rewards is wrong and thinking that even the wheelchair bound can still contribute in some way is the equivalency of forced labor camps.

[Zealot]

Stephen Hawking comes to mind.

[Tenka]

Stephen Hawking comes to mind.
Because the physically disabled will necessarily have uncommonly brilliant minds, am I right?
Again, such dogma as "everyone must contribute to society to get anything out of it" is Workerism or something. It's short-sighted and depressing and not Communism as I understand it.

[Rooster]

I'm fairly certain that if you have to coerce someone into working in a so-called communist society then something has gone terribly wrong. I'm against the idea of having to coerce people into working (by letting them starve, diminishing their humanity, etc). Seems kinda capitalistic to me, to be honest.

[Klaatu]

I don't see why it would be harmful to allow a welfare state to exist within the paradigms of a socialist or communist society.

There would be no need for it, because unemployment would be zero (or nearly zero) because in a Communist/Socialist society, wages are high enough to support employment, and everyone will have opportunity to be employed (not so in a Capitalist system, where 2% of the population hogs half of the national wealth... talk about inefficiency)

To make a point here, take this to a logical extreme: what if 2% owned 100% of the wealth?
No one else could afford to buy... hence a very very weak economy

in other words: no capitalists = high wages = full employment = strong economy

[PhoenixAsh]

What is this continued silly notion of people not wanting to work or be productive? Thats not a problem now and neither will it be in a post revolutionary society.

the notion that this is an issue is perpetuated and hyped by the burgeoisie in order to whip up fear and uncertainty to more easilly be able to push through austerity measures.

More time and money has been spend on debating these issues than that they actually cost...

[MarxSchmarx]

So this is a common objection to socialism/communism.

Two responses:

(1) this happens in capitalism. If someone is born into a wealthy bourgeois or aristocratic family, they do not have to work.

(2) welfare is an investment. keeping even able-bodied lazy people alive so that if they change their ways they can be productive members of society actually makes sense from the perspective of the community. Having them starve to death is a waste of social resources invested presumably to ensure they have all the opportunities (e.g., bangup education, good wages for their working parents, etc...) for success. It is irrational to have them die off and lose these investments when the cost of keeping them alive is so low.

Yes, the latter views humans as instrumental. But it only does so for people who refuse to work. This brings up the basic point that part of being human means being a productive member of society if you are able to do so.


What is this continued silly notion of people not wanting to work or be productive? Thats not a problem now


The likes of Kim Kardashian, the Middleton sisters, Paris Hilton and the Emperor of Japan would beg to differ.

Actually this is the weakest point of the "what about the lazy people" argument. Under socialism/communism, the lazy people won't have it easy. Those who despite all the helping hands provided to them who absolutely refuse to work will be regarded with contempt, they will only have the necessities of life, etc... Whereas under capitalism, those who eschew socially productive labor despite being given plenty of chances are rewarded with their personal helicopters and record deals or, in very rare (if any) cases, starvation.

Having said that,




the notion that this is an issue is perpetuated and hyped by the burgeoisie in order to whip up fear and uncertainty to more easilly be able to push through austerity measures.

More time and money has been spend on debating these issues than that they actually cost...
I agree.

[Zav]

As I am relatively new to leftism, and in the process of looking past my former reactionary viewpoints on many issues, I was wondering from you more seasoned and well read comrades out there on how to deal with a hypothetical unproductive Citizen. Not someone who can't work, but who is willingly lazy and unwilling to contribute. Do they simply just get left out to dry and starve, i.e. if you don't put in you can't take out, are they given discipline until they decide to work? What is the commonly accepted MO with dealing with such a problem?
If you don't work, then you starve, unless you grow all your own food.
Pretty much like today, except there wouldn't be people making tons of money for not working.

[Column No.4]

So no "coercing" people to work, sounds like a quick path to a complete welfare state.

[Klaatu]

I dont think it would either but i think people should want to contribute, help revolutionize their liberated country. Some people here seem to think requiring able bodied people to contribute if they are going to reap rewards is wrong and thinking that even the wheelchair bound can still contribute in some way is the equivalency of forced labor camps.

I don't think people need to be coerced to work. Considering that everyone has a unique talent, however minor it might be, people really WANT to work, and do what they like. This is especially if you do something you are good at (for example, I am a teacher - and I love my job) Besides, NOT working makes people feel depressed and worthless. It might seem fun to NOT have to work for a living, but if someone feels that way, they are probably in the wrong job in the first place.

[Tenka]

So no "coercing" people to work, sounds like a quick path to a complete welfare state.
This is the same sort of nonsense argument used by Reaganites today. Most people want to work, and more would have the opportunity to do so under Communism, with better conditions and probably shorter work days. Keeping alive a few "unproductive" people won't bring society crashing down ffs.

[Klaatu]

We must also consider that there are a lot of unproductive rich people, who contribute nothing at all to society
but just reap the benefits (which have been created by the worker)

[Rooster]

So no "coercing" people to work, sounds like a quick path to a complete welfare state.

You know, you could try reading Marx. He makes several mentions of removing the drudgery of work, the alienation of the labour process, the forced division of labour, etc.

[Strannik]

Basically, in a communist society there are no other ways to achieve social respect besides socially necessary labor - you can't buy it with wealth. Even if you have access to all commodities, even "luxury" commodities, these won't buy you social respect, since everyone else has access to same. Effectively, if you do not partake in social labor, you become isolated and you cannot have respect of others. This is sort of like in capitalist society, you don't ask "what do you do with people who don't want money". There are such people, but they are not a *social* problem, much like lazy people are not a social problem for communistic society. "Lazy" is a relative term anyway - perhaps they have simply a different labor style, where they contribute a huge amount in a short time and then rest for the rest of the year? ;)

As for physically disabled people, I think that modern technology allows them to have equally high social productivity in almost all fields already.

At least this is what I think.

[TelevisionIncarnate]

People should not be forced to work, that only results in half-assed jobs. People should want to work. We can do this by providing a path for everyone to do what they want to do when contributing to society (IE free education). If there are those odd numbers who generally don't like working, re-educating them is our only option, as these people probably didn't grow up and get educated in a communist society.

[Column No.4]

I don't think people need to be coerced to work. Considering that everyone has a unique talent, however minor it might be, people really WANT to work, and do what they like. This is especially if you do something you are good at (for example, I am a teacher - and I love my job) Besides, NOT working makes people feel depressed and worthless. It might seem fun to NOT have to work for a living, but if someone feels that way, they are probably in the wrong job in the first place.

Thats what im saying, take advantage of each persons particular strength in order to rebuilt the country.

[Column No.4]

You know, you could try reading Marx. He makes several mentions of removing the drudgery of work, the alienation of the labour process, the forced division of labour, etc.

This isnt about the drudgery of work, alienation of the labour process or the forced division of labor, this is about the fact that liberating the worker is about doing away with oppressive work, not doing away with work as a whole. If there is no incentive to work then youll most likely end up with the selfish not working and the workers eventually getting sick of supporting the selfish and not working themselves.

[Tenka]

This isnt about the drudgery of work, alienation of the labour process or the forced division of labor, this is about the fact that liberating the worker is about doing away with oppressive work, not doing away with work as a whole.
In the short term, yes. Eventually (that is, post-revolution) increased automation of industries may free people from much manual labour traditionally involved in them, and thus less people may do things that would look like "work" to us today (as it would not be necessary; but hobbyists could have their home factory kits and whatnot).

If there is no incentive to work then youll most likely end up with the selfish not working and the workers eventually getting sick of supporting the selfish and not working themselves.There is always incentive to work; the point is that this "incentive" should not be food, water or a roof over your head (as it is in many cases today, under Capitalism), which are basic necessities for life. For a society to deny these to people who for whatever reason do not work or "contribute" makes it equivalent to a forced labour camp.

[Column No.4]

In the short term, yes. Eventually (that is, post-revolution) increased automation of industries may free people from much manual labour traditionally involved in them, and thus less people may do things that would look like "work" to us today (as it would not be necessary; but hobbyists could have their home factory kits and whatnot).
There is always incentive to work; the point is that this "incentive" should not be food, water or a roof over your head (as it is in many cases today, under Capitalism), which are basic necessities for life. For a society to deny these to people who for whatever reason do not work or "contribute" makes it equivalent to a forced labour camp.

So the incentive isnt food, water or a roof over your head, then what? If none of those are the incentives then there are none, my incentive isnt a 'tele, a computer or any of my other luxuries, its food, water and a roof over my head.

[Tenka]

So the incentive isnt food, water or a roof over your head, then what? If none of those are the incentives then there are none, my incentive isnt a 'tele, a computer or any of my other luxuries, its food, water and a roof over my head.
So you're saying you wouldn't work if you unconditionally got food, water and a roof over your head? I believe that makes you a unique case, sir.

[Column No.4]

So you're saying you wouldn't work if you unconditionally got food, water and a roof over your head? I believe that makes you a unique case, sir.

I would but thats because i think working to improve the country i live in is important. Youll come to find once the necessities are taken care of people will quickly abandon work.

[Tenka]

I would but thats because i think working to improve the country i live in is important. Youll come to find once the necessities are taken care of people will quickly abandon work.
Got anything to back up this conservative-sounding drivel? Maybe our scientists should be working hard at finding a way to turn oxygen into an incentive as well.

Also, I agree with MarxSchmarx here:

(2) welfare is an investment. keeping even able-bodied lazy people alive so that if they change their ways they can be productive members of society actually makes sense from the perspective of the community. Having them starve to death is a waste of social resources invested presumably to ensure they have all the opportunities (e.g., bangup education, good wages for their working parents, etc...) for success. It is irrational to have them die off and lose these investments when the cost of keeping them alive is so low.

[Column No.4]

Got anything to back up this conservative-sounding drivel? Maybe our scientists should be working hard at finding a way to turn oxygen into an incentive as well.

Also, I agree with MarxSchmarx here:

Human bloody nature, what world do you live in?

[Tenka]

Human bloody nature, what world do you live in?
Is that the best you can come up with, seriously? That's one of the most tired non-arguments of Capitalists against Communism that exist (albeit whilst they totally misunderstand what Communism entails).
It's obviously not your "human bloody nature" to refuse work if your basic necessities for life are taken care of, as you've indicated, so why should it be everyone else's?

[Column No.4]

I never said everyone has that mentality but youll find the vast majority would eventually refuse. Im starting to notice something in common with the people ive spoken to on this forum, everything is black and white, from good and bad to right and wrong, absolutely no grey area.

[Tenka]

I never said everyone has that mentality but youll find the vast majority would eventually refuse.
False, unless you can come up with something better than "human nature" (which would appear to contradict your statement) to back it up.

Im starting to notice something in common with the people ive spoken to on this forum, everything is black and white, from good and bad to right and wrong, absolutely no grey area.That's false, too. Have you looked at Opposing Ideologies section?:lol:

[Column No.4]

False, unless you can come up with something better than "human nature" (which would appear to contradict your statement) to back it up.
That's false, too. Have you looked at Opposing Ideologies section?:lol:

No, i didnt contradict my statement, i never said everyone would refuse, i said the vast majority would. Anyone whose spent time studying people would know that the vast majority think of no one but themselves, thats a fact.

[TheGeekySocialist]

I don't think denying a person food will show people that we all have to work together for society. If someone is making the decision not to work the only reason that I could think of is that they are opposed to socialism. If so, why let them starve? It's what they want, to prove to themselves that socialism doesn't work. Instead, why not let them live life in a communist society?

quite, saying things like "let them starve" or "force em to comply" sounds very reactionary and authoritarian to me.

[Column No.4]

quite, saying things like "let them starve" or "force em to comply" sounds very reactionary and authoritarian to me.

Youre right, dont abolish oppressive work, abolish work period.

[Red And Black Sabot]

Lazy bastards are innevitable. That kind of person will have their needs met in communism but I doubt they'll have nicer things cause who in a commune would go out of their way for, or waist any extra time helping out someone who won't contribute? Either way... I think they'll be a lot less of a social burden than the parrasitic capitalist class, their police, and their politician friends are now because as it stands those leaches are taking everything from us working and poor folks leaving us with just enough to scrape by.

[Rooster]

This isnt about the drudgery of work, alienation of the labour process or the forced division of labor, this is about the fact that liberating the worker is about doing away with oppressive work, not doing away with work as a whole. If there is no incentive to work then youll most likely end up with the selfish not working and the workers eventually getting sick of supporting the selfish and not working themselves.

Yes it is. Most people hate working because they're alienated from the whole process of labour. It's no longer your work. The things you make aren't yours. You just sell your labour power to get some moola to sustain yourself. The forced division of labour makes this so. If you enjoy your work then you'll more than likely stick to it especially if it's your work. That's the incentive to work. And besides, who is to decide what is productive and what isn't? If I sit at home all day writing poems or painting then is that productive? Why do you think these kinda of professions are looked upon highly or as being desirable? Why does everyone want to be a musician? It's because they are seen to be able to enjoy their job, to take possession of it.

The incentive to work should be that you enjoy what you're doing. Mostly because it's a social thing and you realise that it's a social thing, ending the alienation of the labour process. The overcoming of capitalist society requires this in the first place so the whole question of making people work is kinda moot. Will there be lazy people? Yes, of course there will be, but if they're enjoying their work then will they be lazy? I doubt it. If you're coerced into working then you're gonna hate it.

[Column No.4]

Yes it is. Most people hate working because they're alienated from the whole process of labour. It's no longer your work. The things you make aren't yours. You just sell your labour power to get some moola to sustain yourself. The forced division of labour makes this so. If you enjoy your work then you'll more than likely stick to it especially if it's your work. That's the incentive to work. And besides, who is to decide what is productive and what isn't? If I sit at home all day writing poems or painting then is that productive? Why do you think these kinda of professions are looked upon highly or as being desirable? Why does everyone want to be a musician? It's because they are seen to be able to enjoy their job, to take possession of it.

The incentive to work should be that you enjoy what you're doing. Mostly because it's a social thing and you realise that it's a social thing, ending the alienation of the labour process. The overcoming of capitalist society requires this in the first place so the whole question of making people work is kinda moot. Will there be lazy people? Yes, of course there will be, but if they're enjoying their work then will they be lazy? I doubt it. If you're coerced into working then you're gonna hate it.

Everything is productive but you have utilize economic and infrastructural triage, clearly my personal training would not be anywhere near the top of the list.

[RED DAVE]

I suspect that under socialism, we will do huge amounts of stuff that is not work:

Paul LaFarge, Marx's son-in-law, wrote this:

THE RIGHT TO BE LAZY (http://www.swaraj.org/multiversity/lafarge_lazy.htm)

RED DAVE

[Seresan]

So the incentive isnt food, water or a roof over your head, then what? If none of those are the incentives then there are none, my incentive isnt a 'tele, a computer or any of my other luxuries, its food, water and a roof over my head.

How are you saying that luxuries arent incentives? What he is saying is that all peoples should meet a minimum standard of living (food, water, etc), and people that WANT to work (as they hopefully would if the education part works) can increase their standard of living a bit.

[Column No.4]

How are you saying that luxuries arent incentives? What he is saying is that all peoples should meet a minimum standard of living (food, water, etc), and people that WANT to work (as they hopefully would if the education part works) can increase their standard of living a bit.

So what kind of ratio of workers to welfare queens are we looking at then?

[Seresan]

So what kind of ratio of workers to welfare queens are we looking at then?

Just look at capitalism. People CAN work menial jobs that just barely pay for food and shelter, but most prefer to aim for harder jobs that allow them to increase their standard of living above normal.

The day I see multiple people tell me that their goal in live is to work at McDonalds and live in a small apartment with just enough food to survive on I'll join your camp.

[Column No.4]

Just look at capitalism. People CAN work menial jobs that just barely pay for food and shelter, but most prefer to aim for harder jobs that allow them to increase their standard of living above normal.

The day I see multiple people tell me that their goal in live is to work at McDonalds and live in a small apartment with just enough food to survive on I'll join your camp.

They aim for harder jobs because the price of living ive ever increasing and in the US your complete and utter demise is literally around every corner.

[Tjis]

If someone is perfectly content living on just the necessities then why not let them? What exactly is the problem here? On our current level of technology the things humans need to survive can easily be produced in abundance by a fraction of the available workforce. It's criminal to let anyone starve to death when there's abundance.

[Column No.4]

If someone is perfectly content living on just the necessities then why not let them? What exactly is the problem here? On our current level of technology the things humans need to survive can easily be produced in abundance by a fraction of the available workforce. It's criminal to let anyone starve to death when there's abundance.

No country should allow an able bodied person to refuse to contribute simply because they dont want to and their survival is taken care of by their fellow man.

[Tjis]

No country should allow an able bodied person to refuse to contribute simply because they dont want to and their survival is taken care of by their fellow man.

Why?

[o well this is ok I guess]

Join him in relaxing.
We barely contribute as it is, even when we do "work". We're an unproductive labour force that still finds time to eat.

[Column No.4]

Why?

Its bloody selfish on soo many levels and i prescribe to "he who doesnt work, doesnt eat", unless of course he provides for himself. That person would be taking food off of someone elses plate, someone that worked for it.

[Tjis]

Its bloody selfish on soo many levels and i prescribe to "he who doesnt work, doesnt eat", unless of course he provides for himself. That person would be taking food off of someone elses plate, someone that worked for it.

No they wouldn't, because food can and should be produced in abundance.
It is a choice between giving it to someone who doesn't work or throwing it away.

[Misanthrope]

I don't see why it would be harmful to allow a welfare state to exist within the paradigms of a socialist or communist society.

That's why.

[Column No.4]

Join him in relaxing.
We barely contribute as it is, even when we do "work".

Im looking at it from a post revolution standpoint, i would very much enjoy fixing roads, building bridges, etc. because its moving my country towards prosperity. A person that doesnt work because his necessities are taken care of also shows a lack of love and caring for his country.

[Column No.4]

No they wouldn't, because food can and should be produced in abundance.
It is a choice between giving it to someone who doesn't work or throwing it away.

If a large portion of society has chosen not to work because their necessities are provided regardless how to do you intend we produce such large quantities of sustenance?

[o well this is ok I guess]

Im looking at it from a post revolution standpoint, i would very much enjoy fixing roads, building bridges, etc. because its moving my country towards prosperity. A person that doesnt work because his necessities are taken care of also shows a lack of love and caring for his country. And so am I. It's not as if the various machines made to reduce the amount of human labour needed in every sphere of society will simply cease to exist.

[Column No.4]

And so am I. It's not as if the various machines made to reduce the amount of human labour needed in every sphere of society will simply cease to exist.

Well that should simply make things easier on the worker, not afford the people that dont want to work the option not to.

[Tjis]

If a large portion of society has chosen not to work because their necessities are provided regardless how to do you intend we produce such large quantities of sustenance?

In such a case obviously there can't be free access to these items.
But as you said in earlier posts, you yourself would gladly work, and so would any decent person. Probably the vast majority of people would be willing to work, provided they would actually play a meaningful part in the production process instead of simply being ordered to do some menial job. I'm not saying everyone would, but given the choice between being an appreciated member of the community or a social isolate whose interaction with their community is limited to getting their free food, most would prefer being appreciated. We're social animals after all.
Food production, being the most primary need of humanity, would be the first thing to reach abundance level.

[o well this is ok I guess]

Well that should simply make things easier on the worker, not afford the people that dont want to work the luxury not to. But you see, that's the thing. You're underestimating just how easy it can get on the worker. If I recall correctly, the lego factory has reached almost zero human labour. It's fine and all to want everything that can be done to be done, but at some point we may be left with nothing to do. After all, I'm hoping the academics of the post-revolutionary society will take an interest in the advancement of such machinery.

[Column No.4]

In such a case obviously there can't be free access to these items.
But as you said in earlier posts, you yourself would gladly work, and so would any decent person. Probably the vast majority of people would be willing to work, provided they would actually play a meaningful part in the production process instead of simply being ordered to do some menial job. I'm not saying everyone would, but given the choice between being an appreciated member of the community or a social isolate whose interaction with their community is limited to getting their free food, most would prefer being appreciated. We're social animals after all.
Food production, being the most primary need of humanity, would be the first thing to reach abundance level.

Aaah, thats granted that most people think the way we do, which i can tell you they dont, or at least i havent met one outside of this forum that does.

[Tjis]

After all, I'm hoping the academics of the post-revolutionary society will take an interest in the advancement of such machinery.

Actually academics are usually terrible engineers. Theory simply doesn't translate neatly to practice. I expect that workers desiring an improvement in their own work situation would try to do so themselves, probably by establishing engineering schools more in touch with the actual work being done.

I don't mean to say that there's no place for pure academic research, just that work situation improvements should not depend on a group of intellectuals detached from that situation.

[Column No.4]

But you see, that's the thing. You're underestimating just how easy it can get on the worker. If I recall correctly, the lego factory has reached almost zero human labour. It's fine and all to want everything that can be done to be done, but at some point we may be left with nothing to do. After all, I'm hoping the academics of the post-revolutionary society will take an interest in the advancement of such machinery.

The point at which the worker would no longer be needed due to complete automation would be soo far down the road its not even worth bringing up. Even then crops have to be planted, harvested, things have to be maintained and supplies have to be trucked and distributed to the people.

[Tjis]

Aaah, thats granted that most people think the way we do, which i can tell you they dont, or at least i havent met one outside of this forum that does.

But not many outside of the communist movement have much hope for a proletarian revolution either. If you have any hope in the proletariat acting in their collective interest in that way despite enormous repression, then why do you think they'd simply stop working for their collective interest after the revolution?

[Column No.4]

But not many outside of the communist movement have much hope for a proletarian revolution either. If you have any hope in the proletariat acting in their collective interest in that way despite enormous repression, then why do you think they'd simply stop working for their collective interest after the revolution?

I think the difference effecting our outlook on this subject is the countries we live in. Europe is far more leftist than the near fascist country i live in, the US, that literally thinks its one small step from mass transit to Communism.

[o well this is ok I guess]

The point at which the worker would no longer be needed due to complete automation would be soo far down the road its not even worth bringing up. Even then crops have to be planted, harvested, things have to be maintained and supplies have to be trucked and distributed to the people. Planting and Harvesting is done largely with machines, bro. But yes, there are still jobs that require human labour. We'll distribute the hours among those who have been pushed out of the factory, then. Or the thousands who will be out of jobs for lack of purpose. At the very least, we can surely bring the work week down to a point where it is almost negligible.

[Column No.4]

Planting and Harvesting is done largely with machines, bro. But yes, there are still jobs that require human labour. We'll distribute the hours among those who have been pushed out of the factory, then. Or the thousands who will be out of jobs for lack of purpose. At the very least, we can surely bring the work week down to a point where it is almost negligible.

Thats what im looking for, not half working, half lazing, but a two or three day work week because everyones working, in conjunction with the utilization of machines, to reach the common goal.

[Tjis]

I think the difference effecting our outlook on this subject is the countries we live in. Europe is far more leftist than the near fascist country i live in, the US, that literally thinks its one small step from mass transit to Communism.

That's really just an American fairy tale. Europe is not leftist at all.
The populist right is rapidly rising in power pretty much all over the place and what is left of the welfare systems is rapidly being broken down. Meanwhile various European countries have seen a rise in right-wing street-level organizations such as the EDL. The situation is even worse in south and eastern Europe where there are actually pogroms on Roma villages and immigrant communities. If I were to base my assessment on the currently popular views, I'd consider proletarian revolution and communism an impossibility.

But views do not arise out of nothing. It is no surprise that this is happening, considering that for the last decades cultural hegemony has been all about portraying everyone who does not fit in the mold of hard working white male aged between 30 and 50 as a parasite, both in Europe and the United States. Such terms as welfare queens are rooted in in a continuous effort to divide the proletariat in order to paralyze them, to reduce them to nothing but compliant workers, to be discarded when they are no longer useful. (specifically, 'welfare queen' is a term made up by Reagan in order to establish the idea that those on welfare are usually black women who are abusing the system.)

If a revolution is to happen at all (in the US, Europe or wherever), a few conditions need to be met.
- This mess of bourgeois ideas needs to disappear from the proletarian world view
- The proletariat needs to realize the limitations of capitalism as well as their own potential to build a better society
- The proletariat needs to organize in order to work for their collective interest

Considering that those are the necessary preconditions for any revolution to happen, a post-revolutionary society will start out with a proletariat that is already organized to work for their collective interests and willing to do so. So if a revolution is to happen at all, it'll result in a society where the majority of the proletariat will already want to work to better their situation. If this is not the case, the revolution would simply not have happened.

This is why I see no problem with free access to abundant necessities. If revolution is possible, then so is a free access society.

[Column No.4]

That's really just an American fairy tale. Europe is not leftist at all.
The populist right is rapidly rising in power pretty much all over the place and what is left of the welfare systems is rapidly being broken down. Meanwhile various European countries have seen a rise in right-wing street-level organizations such as the EDL. The situation is even worse in south and eastern Europe where there are actually pogroms on Roma villages and immigrant communities. If I were to base my assessment on the currently popular views, I'd consider proletarian revolution and communism an impossibility.

But views do not arise out of nothing. It is no surprise that this is happening, considering that for the last decades cultural hegemony has been all about portraying everyone who does not fit in the mold of hard working white male aged between 30 and 50 as a parasite, both in Europe and the United States. Such terms as welfare queens are rooted in in a continuous effort to divide the proletariat in order to paralyze them, to reduce them to nothing but compliant workers, to be discarded when they are no longer useful. (specifically, 'welfare queen' is a term made up by Reagan in order to establish the idea that those on welfare are usually black women who are abusing the system.)

If a revolution is to happen at all (in the US, Europe or wherever), a few conditions need to be met.
- This mess of bourgeois ideas needs to disappear from the proletarian world view
- The proletariat needs to realize the limitations of capitalism as well as their own potential to build a better society
- The proletariat needs to organize in order to work for their collective interest

Considering that those are the necessary preconditions for any revolution to happen, a post-revolutionary society will start out with a proletariat that is already organized to work for their collective interests and willing to do so. So if a revolution is to happen at all, it'll result in a society where the majority of the proletariat will already want to work to better their situation. If this is not the case, the revolution would simply not have happened.

This is why I see no problem with free access to abundant necessities. If revolution is possible, then so is a free access society.

The EDL and groups like it may be gaining some power but i know for a fact that the right wing in England would be classed as left wing in the US. Also revolution is far more likely in Europe due to its history of revolutions and the fact that its people seem far more likely to protest injustices. Now take a look at the US, its a constant onslaught on the working and middle class and what do they do, they vote in candidates that strip collective bargaining rights, benefits, etc.

[Tjis]

The EDL and groups like it may be gaining some power but i know for a fact that the right wing in England would be classed as left wing in the US. Also revolution is far more likely in Europe due to its history of revolutions and the fact that its people seem far more likely to protest injustices. Now take a look at the US, its a constant onslaught on the working and middle class and what do they do, they vote in candidates that strip collective bargaining rights, benefits, etc.

So what you're saying is that revolution in the US is impossible altogether then?
What's the point of talking about distribution in a post-revolutionary society when your assumptions are clearly rooted in the impossibility of that revolution?

[Column No.4]

So what you're saying is that revolution in the US is impossible altogether then?
What's the point of talking about distribution in a post-revolutionary society when your assumptions are clearly rooted in the impossibility of that revolution?

I didnt say it was impossible but it think if it doesnt happen upon the current unrealised admission by the Republicans that they are in fact anti-working and anti-middle class then i dont know what else Americans need to spark them to revolution.

[Die Rote Fahne]

I never said they had to use their hands, one can contribute through knowledge.
If they happen to be not very intelligent as a result of genetics, or lack of interest in academia?

[Red And Black Sabot]

the current unrealised admission by the Republicans that they are in fact anti-working and anti-middle class

Source? Not that I disagree that they in fact are but I haven't seen any sort of admission to this. And, how would that be any different to what the GOP was a few decades ago where it was pretty much understood that they were the business man's party. Don't they benefit from acting populist and Christian way to much now a' days to make that sort of admission?

[Klaatu]

As I am relatively new to leftism, and in the process of looking past my former reactionary viewpoints on many issues, I was wondering from you more seasoned and well read comrades out there on how to deal with a hypothetical unproductive Citizen. Not someone who can't work, but who is willingly lazy and unwilling to contribute. Do they simply just get left out to dry and starve, i.e. if you don't put in you can't take out, are they given discipline until they decide to work? What is the commonly accepted MO with dealing with such a problem?

With due respect to the OP, I say this: find out what people are interested in. Capability tests should be given in the early-teenage level school, to determine what each child is interested in/capable of. (partying/making money/getting laid do not count :lol:)

Each kid wants do something with his/her life. Guidance and direction is the name of the game!

[Column No.4]

If they happen to be not very intelligent as a result of genetics, or lack of interest in academia?

Now youre just being ridiculous.

[Column No.4]

Source? Not that I disagree that they in fact are but I haven't seen any sort of admission to this. And, how would that be any different to what the GOP was a few decades ago where it was pretty much understood that they were the business man's party. Don't they benefit from acting populist and Christian way to much now a' days to make that sort of admission?

The average man has always believed the Republican party is the party that wants him to succeed and become a millionaire. The admission that they are in fact anti-working and anti-middle class, the fact that theyre now compaigning for higher taxes on the working and middle class.

[Klaatu]

The average man has always believed the Republican party is the party that wants him to succeed and become a millionaire. The admission that they are in fact anti-working and anti-middle class, the fact that theyre now compaigning for higher taxes on the working and middle class.

The "succeed-and-be-a-millionaire" is, and always has been, a gimmick, to keep Republicans in power. Goodgod, how easily people are duped...

[Column No.4]

The "succeed-and-be-a-millionaire" is, and always has been, a gimmick, to keep Republicans in power. Goodgod, how easily people are duped...

I know, im not easily dumbfounded but that case gets me every time i think about it. The US is what you get when you dont value education.

[Ism]

First of all, English is not my first language, thus I am truly sorry if I do not get my point across correctly.

To have the opinion that non-working people should be denied a decent living is a reactionary point of view. The only argument proposing this statement, namely the argument that everyone would just quit work and lounge for the rest of their lives, is an "argument" based on absolutely nothing. The argument is by far outdated by scientific research and other arguments which have already been explained in this thread.

However, there is one other vital argument for comprehensive social security for everyone, not just the people who are working. It has something to do with the right to strike at all times:

Even though I do not believe it would ever be necessary simply due to the non-exploitive nature of a socialist/communist society, it is still vital that the worker's right to strike is upheld at all times. This ever-present right counters counter-revolutionary tendencies that hypothetically could emerge post-revolution. The right to strike (indefinitely) is powered through social security. If the workers on strike were not able to strike indefinitely, the strike would lose its power, thus bringing the working class to its knees. Social security (read: comprehensive social security, not necessarily just water, food, housing etc.) powers the strike and is a key component to successful revlution.

In conclusion, the right to a decent living through comprehensive social security provided by society is, has always been, and will always be in the interest of the working class. Comprehensive social security is a revolutionary weapon, and anyone opposing it and advocating forced labor cannot call themselves revolutionaries. You may disagree, but I find this very logical.

...And this is just one of many arguments.

[Column No.4]

First of all, English is not my first language, thus I am truly sorry if I do not get my point across correctly.

To have the opinion that non-working people should be denied a decent living is a reactionary point of view. The only argument proposing this statement, namely the argument that everyone would just quit work and lounge for the rest of their lives, is an "argument" based on absolutely nothing. The argument is by far outdated by scientific research and other arguments which have already been explained in this thread.

However, there is one other vital argument for comprehensive social security for everyone, not just the people who are working. It has something to do with the right to strike at all times:

Even though I do not believe it would ever be necessary simply due to the non-exploitive nature of a socialist/communist society, it is still vital that the worker's right to strike is upheld at all times. This ever-present right counters counter-revolutionary tendencies that hypothetically could emerge post-revolution. The right to strike (indefinitely) is powered through social security. If the workers on strike were not able to strike indefinitely, the strike would lose its power, thus bringing the working class to its knees. Social security (read: comprehensive social security, not necessarily just water, food, housing etc.) powers the strike and is a key component to successful revlution.

In conclusion, the right to a decent living through comprehensive social security provided by society is, has always been, and will always be in the interest of the working class. Comprehensive social security is a revolutionary weapon, and anyone opposing it and advocating forced labor cannot call themselves revolutionaries. You may disagree, but I find this very logical.

...And this is just one of many arguments.

Well good luck with your welfare state.

[Tenka]

Well good luck with your welfare state.
Because what we strive for is a utopia of Rational Self-Interested Workers throwing the weak and unproductive by the wayside to be trampled by starvation and the elements even if we produce far more than enough to feed and house them,-- it's the principal of the matter!
Wait, what is that...? Could we call it Right-wing Workerism?

[Seresan]

No country should allow an able bodied person to refuse to contribute simply because they dont want to and their survival is taken care of by their fellow man.
Methinks the authoritarian is too stubborn and thinking too narrowly.

[Column No.4]

Because what we strive for is a utopia of Rational Self-Interested Workers throwing the weak and unproductive by the wayside to be trampled by starvation and the elements even if we produce far more than enough to feed and house them,-- it's the principal of the matter!
Wait, what is that...? Could we call it Right-wing Workerism?

We arent talking about the weak, were talking about the lazy.

[Column No.4]

Methinks the authoritarian is too stubborn and thinking too narrowly.

Well when the time comes you feel free to work for that lazy person that thinks he should be able to reap all the benefits without contributing.

[Tenka]

We arent talking about the weak, were talking about the lazy.
Wouldn't you say the "lazy" have a... a weakness of character?
Regardless, letting individuals starve because they refuse to make their negligible (and it ought to be fucking negligible under Communism) "contribution to society" is un-empathetic and rather heinous.

[Column No.4]

Wouldn't you say the "lazy" have a... a weakness of character?
Regardless, letting people starve because they refuse to make their negligible "contribution to society" is un-empathetic and rather heinous.

I show no empathy to those that show none to others.

[Tenka]

I show no empathy to those that show none to others.
You don't know what empathy is. Under such a regime as you seem to prescribe, people would be working to survive, and not out of empathy. Laziness speaks nothing of a lack of empathy; especially when scarcity is the phantom of a Capitalist past.

Also, I don't think empathy is a conditional thing for most people....

[Seresan]

The more you talk about "working to live" and "letting the weak perish" the more you sound like a right-wing capitalist... I'd cut my losses if I were you.

[Ocean Seal]

If you don't want to work, you don't have to. But remember socialism is from each according to his ability, to each according to his deeds.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

If you don't want to work, you don't have to. But remember socialism is from each according to his ability, to each according to his deeds.

Needs, was that a typo?

Anyway there are much preferential and better ways to assure some contribution when such is desired than mirroring the essential coercion, or, to put it rightly, threat, of capitalism; work or starve/assorted synonyms.

[Tomhet]

As I am relatively new to leftism, and in the process of looking past my former reactionary viewpoints on many issues, I was wondering from you more seasoned and well read comrades out there on how to deal with a hypothetical unproductive Citizen. Not someone who can't work, but who is willingly lazy and unwilling to contribute. Do they simply just get left out to dry and starve, i.e. if you don't put in you can't take out, are they given discipline until they decide to work? What is the commonly accepted MO with dealing with such a problem?

Put it this way, if someone won't help society, why would society help them?

[EvilRedGuy]

Put it this way, if someone won't help society, why would society help them?

Pathetic, Lame argument.

The people ARE the society therefore they would have to help themself.

[Column No.4]

The more you talk about "working to live" and "letting the weak perish" the more you sound like a right-wing capitalist... I'd cut my losses if I were you.

You sound like you dont know what Socialism or Communism is.

[Column No.4]

Pathetic, Lame argument.

The people ARE the society therefore they would have to help themself.

Exactly, help yourself, just dont help yourself to the fruits of anothers labor.

[EvilRedGuy]

Exactly, help yourself, just dont help yourself to the fruits of anothers labor.

How do you know if other workers would have anything against sharing the fruits of the labor? Surely its their opinion that counts and not a random person like you?

[Tenka]

Exactly, help yourself, just dont help yourself to the fruits of anothers labor.
Are you sure you're not arguing for subsistence farming? You terribly exaggerate the impact an "unproductive" citizen would have on society to the point where I think you just have a murderous prejudice against people whose sole purpose for existence is not "work!".

[Column No.4]

How do you know if other workers would have anything against sharing the fruits of the labor? Surely its their opinion that counts and not a random person like you?

Then why even have a society, we should be discussing primitivism then.

[Column No.4]

Are you sure you're not arguing for subsistence farming? You terribly exaggerate the impact an "unproductive" citizen would have on society to the point where I think you just have a murderous prejudice against people whose sole purpose for existence is not "work!".

You have no right to survive off the back of someone else.

[Tenka]

You have no right to survive off the back of someone else.
Rights are determined by society. There is no universal "right to survive off the back of someone else", but there is also no universal right to not have your back survived off of. :rolleyes:

Then why even have a society, we should be discussing primitivism then.
You're way ahead of us there lol.

[Column No.4]

Rights are determined by society. There is no universal "right to survive off the back of someone else", but there is also no universal right to not have your back survived off of.

As i said before, good luck with your welfare state.


You're way ahead of us there lol.

Right, because being advanced is having a lifelong welfare policy.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Right, because being advanced is having a lifelong welfare policy.

I'd say it certainly would be a good thing. Not in the bourgeois context aiming to pacify (which never is allowed to survive for longer than necessary anyway), but yes, nothing wrong with extensive welfare and social provisions.

[Tenka]

Right, because being advanced is having a lifelong welfare policy.
Communism aims for a classless society; the proletariat -- that is, the working class -- is the revolutionary class that will bring this about, and not an end in itself. In revolutionary society, when our productive forces have created indisputable abundance without the retardant of Capitalist exploitation, to consciously deny the basic necessities of life to those who do not work is nothing short of sociopathic. I'm done posting in this thread.

[Column No.4]

I'd say it certainly would be a good thing. Not in the bourgeois context aiming to pacify (which never is allowed to survive for longer than necessary anyway), but yes, nothing wrong with extensive welfare and social provisions.

Im for welfare as an aid to getting on your feet, not as a crutch for ones laziness.

[Column No.4]

Communism aims for a classless society; the proletariat -- that is, the working class -- is the revolutionary class that will bring this about, and not an end in itself. In revolutionary society, when our productive forces have created indisputable abundance without the retardant of Capitalist exploitation, to consciously deny the basic necessities of life to those who do not work is nothing short of sociopathic. I'm done posting in this thread.

Thank god for that, now you can go feed someones drug addiction.

[Dogs On Acid]

People will work when a job they like is available. Why do people have to equate labour with negativity?

I like farming, so every weekend I go to my grandfather's farm to take care of the animals and help my neighbors brew wine and collect their vegetables. Nobody forces me to do this, yet I still give my time and my sweat to accomplish these tasks.

I'm also a computer programmer, so on my free time I clean, format and fix my friends PC's, for nothing in return. I do this because I like to do it!

Unfortunately I cannot be a farmer or a programmer because I have no money and have no employment. In a Communist society, I would be a happy, productive citizen, and so would many "welfare queens" out there like me :rolleyes:

[Column No.4]

People will work when a job they like is available. Why do people have to equate labour with negativity?

I like farming, so every weekend I go to my grandfather's farm to take care of the animals and help my neighbors brew wine and collect their vegetables. Nobody forces me to do this, yet I still give my time and my sweat to accomplish these tasks.

I'm also a computer programmer, so on my free time I clean, format and fix my friends PC's, for nothing in return. I do this because I like to do it!

Unfortunately I cannot be a farmer or a programmer because I have no money and have no employment. In a Communist society, I would be a happy, productive citizen, and so would many "welfare queens" out there like me :rolleyes:

My god the people on this site are thick. If youre helping your grandparents farm, your neighbors brew and harvest and fixing your friends PCs then its contributing. Im honestly shocked at how liberating the masses from oppressive work has become about liberating the masses from work as a whole.

[Rooster]

I think Column No.4 is viewing this problem in too narrow a way. I'm pretty sure the whole point of communism is to liberate work from a chore into something you enjoy (through mostly control of the means of production, the removal of wage labour, the ending of forced division of labour, etc). What makes people lazy under capitalism? I can't really accept that fact that you would really just let people starve to motivate them. That's just the same right wing shit you hear all the time (especially from the Tories). What's holding back people's motivations today? What's the thing that stops from being a whole person? It's all the things under capitalism that makes capitalism.

Can you answer what makes people lazy?

[Column No.4]

I think Column No.4 is viewing this problem in too narrow a way. I'm pretty sure the whole point of communism is to liberate work from a chore into something you enjoy (through mostly control of the means of production, the removal of wage labour, the ending of forced division of labour, etc). What makes people lazy under capitalism? I can't really accept that fact that you would really just let people starve to motivate them. That's just the same right wing shit you hear all the time (especially from the Tories). What's holding back people's motivations today? What's the thing that stops from being a whole person? It's all the things under capitalism that makes capitalism.

Can you answer what makes people lazy?

I think when people have their basics taken care of they dont really care how much they work after that, so if they dont have to they wont. In Socialism and Communism people dont work because their basics are taken care of, in Capitalism people dont work because they feel its a futile attempt at survival.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

My god the people on this site are thick. If youre helping your grandparents farm, your neighbors brew and harvest and fixing your friends PCs then its contributing. Im honestly shocked at how liberating the masses from oppressive work has become about liberating the masses from work as a whole.

He's not thick at all. You argued that a substantial population need to have the threat of the denial of necessities hanging over their heads to work and he is providing a counter-example. He did that work without any threat of starvation or death by exposure.

You seem to think that a majority of the human population would exist as "welfare queens" if necessities are provided. This is an unsupportable argument because people do not live for their necessities. Most people would work a little harder to have their own television, a computer, books, wine, good beer, a vacation, or even just social respect, even if they are unwilling to contribute for the "Good of humanity". You act like the denial of necessities is the only rational incentive, which is total nonsense considering most people who work difficult but high paying jobs could surely work part time and get by quite comfortably nonetheless.

Perhaps you should think twice when you are using Reaganite propaganda concepts like "welfare queens" etc. In the modern welfare state, there are of course plenty of people who abuse the system to survive, and some might after a revolution too. But you must consider that characters like this tend to be coming from a poor educational and social background and are deciding between welfare and very low-wage and unrewarding jobs. Even insofar as this is a problem, it is not one which would be very costly since food, water and shelter as well as other basic amenities like electricity and gas are low-cost to provide to everyone.


Now, lets look at the costs of having necessities unsupported. If they still do not work then what will happen? These lazy people will either (a) beg or (b) become criminals. Either way they are no more productive than before, but if (b) is the case they will add new social costs in people getting their homes robbed, etc. And if society still had some kind of prison system then it would still be paying room and board, as well as water and food. They would also need to employ many more guards, judges and police too, just like in the modern bourgeois society (presumably there would always be crime of some type, but a lack of available necessities is a common cause). So the attempt to force a few unproductive people to work has actually created a host of new costs anyways.

[Column No.4]

He's not thick at all. You argued that a substantial population need to have the threat of the denial of necessities hanging over their heads to work and he is providing a counter-example. He did that work without any threat of starvation or death by exposure.

You seem to think that a majority of the human population would exist as "welfare queens" if necessities are provided. This is an unsupportable argument because people do not live for their necessities. Most people would work a little harder to have their own television, a computer, books, wine, good beer, a vacation, or even just social respect, even if they are unwilling to contribute for the "Good of humanity". You act like the denial of necessities is the only rational incentive, which is total nonsense considering most people who work difficult but high paying jobs could surely work part time and get by quite comfortably nonetheless.

Perhaps you should think twice when you are using Reaganite propaganda concepts like "welfare queens" etc. In the modern welfare state, there are of course plenty of people who abuse the system to survive, and some might after a revolution too. But you must consider that characters like this tend to be coming from a poor educational and social background and are deciding between welfare and very low-wage and unrewarding jobs. Even insofar as this is a problem, it is not one which would be very costly since food, water and shelter as well as other basic amenities like electricity and gas are low-cost to provide to everyone.


Now, lets look at the costs of having necessities unsupported. If they still do not work then what will happen? These lazy people will either (a) beg or (b) become criminals. Either way they are no more productive than before, but if (b) is the case they will add new social costs. And if society still had some kind of prison system then it would still be paying room and board, as well as water and food. They would also need to employ guards.

Wrong, i never said a substantial, i have no idea exactly how many people would refuse to work. On the subject of people working high paying yet dangerous jobs, they have to. As ive said before, in the US youre literally one accident away from complete and utter poverty.

[Dogs On Acid]

I think when people have their basics taken care of they dont really care how much they work after that, so if they dont have to they wont.

My "basics" are taken care of by welfare, and I work out of will. Doing something productive is rewarding to the individual and to society. Work can be fun, we just have to make it that way.

In Capitalism, people on Welfare might not look for a job for a very simple reason, they dislike working hard and afterward having the fruits of their labour taken away by some fucking boss.

I'd rather stay on welfare than design a software program only to not own it when it's finished.

[Column No.4]

My "basics" are taken care of by welfare, and I work out of will. Doing something productive is rewarding to the individual and to society. Work can be fun, we just have to make it that way.

In Capitalism, people on Welfare might not look for a job for a very simple reason, they dislike working hard and afterward having the fruits of their labour taken away by some fucking boss.

I'd rather stay on welfare than design a software program only to not own it when it's finished.


Like ive said before, youre free to fight and sustain your welfare state. Enjoy your workless days of lazily masturbating, ill just subscribe to primitivism.

"Solitary tress, if they grow at all, grow strong"- Winston Churchill

[Dogs On Acid]

Like ive said before, youre free to fight and sustain your welfare state. Enjoy your workless days of lazily masturbating, ill just subscribe to primitivism.

"Solitary tress, if they grow at all, grow strong"- Winston Churchill

Can't tell if trolling.

[Column No.4]

Can't tell if trolling.

I was being lightly sarcastic.

[Dogs On Acid]

I was being lightly sarcastic.

Don't be surprised if you get restricted.

[Column No.4]

Don't be surprised if you get restricted.

I wont, like ive said before, anything short of lockstep line towing gets you either restricted or banned.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

I wont, like ive said before, anything short of lockstep line towing gets you either restricted or banned.

No, we have plenty of disagreements that does not warrant this. You just happen to be rather... reactionary. I notice you are trying to paint yourself as a victim of political correctness and persecution, how remarkably unsurprising.

[Column No.4]

No, we have plenty of disagreements that does not warrant this. You just happen to be rather... reactionary.

Everything ive posted, from my entertaining enlistment in the Legion to thinking that he who doesnt work, doesnt eat to refusing to accept that the Israeli/ Palestinian conflict is equivalent to South African apartheid has garnered vicious personal attacks and a thread created about how i should be restricted or banned.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Everything ive posted, from my entertaining enlistment in the Legion to thinking that he who doesnt work, doesnt eat to refusing to accept that the Israeli/ Palestinian conflict is equivalent to South African apartheid has garnered vicious personal attacks and a thread created about how i should be restricted or banned.

That might be because you are wrong on all those issues.

[Column No.4]

That might be because you are wrong on all those issues.

Like i said, lockstep line towing. Pinochet would have been proud to have you guys within his ranks.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Like i said, lockstep line towing. Pinoche would have been proud to have you guys within his ranks.

If you mean Pinochet (or Pinocchio?), I very much doubt it. You don't really know what you are saying or you are some sort of a troll. I'm sure you would agree more with Pinochet than us. Aside from his personal megalomania, his political stances were typically populist with hints of nationalism and militarism but otherwise all over the place in an incoherent mess. I'm sure you're familiar with that part.

[Column No.4]

If you mean Pinochet (or Pinocchio?), I very much doubt it. You don't really know what you are saying or you are some sort of a troll. I'm sure you would agree more with Pinochet than us. Aside from his personal megalomania, his political stances were typically populist with hints of nationalism and militarism but otherwise all over the place in an incoherent mess. I'm sure you're familiar with that part.

Unfortunately im not because i have yet to contradict myself, unlike some of those that have railed against anything ive ever said. Let me imagine, for a moment, that im wrong and you all are right, military is evil, dont hit your children under any circumstances, abolish work and reward laziness, Israel is evil, there, now im officially reeducated.

[Dogs On Acid]

Unfortunately im not because i have yet to contradict myself, unlike some of those that have railed against anything ive ever said. Let me imagine, for a moment, that im wrong and you all are right, military is evil, dont hit your children under any circumstances, abolish work and reward laziness, Israel is evil, there, now im officially reeducated.

It's not the fact that your wrong that I dislike you, it's the fact you don't want to change your point of view. You are the opposite of progressive, in other words you are a reactionary and a conservative. We don't appreciate that stance on this Forum.

Please leave.

[Column No.4]

It's not the fact that your wrong that I dislike you, it's the fact you don't want to change your point of view. You are the opposite of progressive, in other words you are a reactionary and a conservative. We don't appreciate that stance on this Forum.

Please leave.

Anything ive ever said on this forum is, if anything, closer to centrist than absolute Socialist or Communist. Just because i agree predominantly with Socialism or Communism doesnt mean i agree with every single aspect of it, which i can see is what youre requiring.

[Dogs On Acid]

Anything ive ever said on this forum is, if anything, closer to centrist than absolute Socialist or Communist. Just because i agree predominantly with Socialism or Communism doesnt mean i agree with every single aspect of it, which i can see is what youre requiring.

There is a place for you then: Opposing Ideologies.

[Column No.4]

There is a place for you then: Opposing Ideologies.

So being slightly more to the centre than absolute radical left makes me a complete opposing ideology?

[Dogs On Acid]

So being slightly more to the centre than absolute radical left makes me a complete opposing ideology?

It doesn't make you radical left, that's for sure. :rolleyes:

[Commissar Rykov]

My "basics" are taken care of by welfare, and I work out of will. Doing something productive is rewarding to the individual and to society. Work can be fun, we just have to make it that way.

In Capitalism, people on Welfare might not look for a job for a very simple reason, they dislike working hard and afterward having the fruits of their labour taken away by some fucking boss.

I'd rather stay on welfare than design a software program only to not own it when it's finished.

This is a rather nice summary of the current problem capitalism faces and it is hilarious how the Bourgeoisie don't want to admit why people stay on welfare. The reality is you have much more flexibility and free time on welfare and hell sometimes you get paid better. I know when I was on Unemployment I got better and more consistent paychecks then when I worked which seems odd to me but whatever.

The reality is the nature of Capitalism leads to a complete alienation of the Worker from his Labor and thus leads to him further being alienated from society as a whole. As Marx stated Capitalism in its very nature alienates Humanity from everything as it makes everything into a commodity and thus Humanity becomes alienated from life itself as they no longer see mountains or streams but areas that can be used to produce commodities and enhance Capital. With a Socialist transformation of society we will see an increase in downtime and no longer will you work to put food on the table or keep a roof over your head you will work because you enjoy the labor you are engaged in. That is the only way to combat alienation and end the enslavement of Humanity to Capital.

[Column No.4]

It doesn't make you radical left, that's for sure. :rolleyes:

Yeah, god forbid id actually share opinions with people that arent completely radical.

[Klaatu]

I don't think people are on welfare because they are "lazy." Most people receiving food stamps and assistance are children. And then there are the working poor. These are folks that cannot find decent-paying jobs for whatever reason (usually as a result of dog-eat-dog capitalism itself)

I am not saying there are NO lazy people, but they probably make up about only 0.01% of the total number of people getting welfare.
The vast majority of welfare people actually work in low-paying shit jobs, thanks to capitalism and America's failed educational system.

[Stynx]

What happen if someone work harder than the other. Will he get any benefit or get any better salary than the other? Simple question really. :rolleyes:

[EvilRedGuy]

No. No such thing as working "harder" Its "From each according to their ABILITY" A handicapped who contributes as much as possible is doing all of his abilities as someone who is non-handicapped and can do more is, so each is working as hard. No harder work, only different abilities. Same benefit no better treatment, equal treatment.

And yes, it is a simple question but why so sarcastic lol?

[Stynx]

No. No such thing as working "harder" Its "From each according to their ABILITY" A handicapped who contributes as much as possible is doing all of his abilities as someone who is non-handicapped and can do more is, so each is working as hard. No harder work, only different abilities. Same benefit no better treatment, equal treatment.

And yes, it is a simple question but why so sarcastic lol?

What a fantastic ideology, no more elites and family CEO.

[Tjis]

What happen if someone work harder than the other. Will he get any benefit or get any better salary than the other? Simple question really. :rolleyes:

It's not a simple question really.
A salary is the money one gets for selling their labor-power to a boss. This relation between a boss and a worker is one of the primary things that a socialist revolution will abolish, so after a revolution wages and salaries cease to exist. When the production process is under democratic control of the workers, there's no longer someone workers would work for, only people they'd work with in order to accomplish a collective goal.

So would there be benefits for working harder? Sure! If Alice is responsible for 80% of a project, and Bob only for 20%, then Alice has far more direct influence in the outcome of this project, and will gain much more respect than Bob. Or if Alice is able to do in 1 hour what takes Bob 2 hours, they might decide that Alice will only work half the time that Bob works. And if both work harder, the work is done earlier and everyone benefits.

The key thing to be aware of here is that workers would be working for their own needs, and the needs of other workers. In that case, there's no need to have a market where the produced commodities are exchanged for money. Instead, commodities can just go directly to whoever needs them. There is no benefit in making lots of money then, since it'd not give someone the ability to fulfill some need they couldn't otherwise fulfill. In fact, money is very likely to be abolished altogether when it has lost all its purpose after a revolution.

By the way, from the way you phrase your question it seems that you think that currently hard workers are rewarded more than slow workers (apologies if I'm wrong). This is not the case. Workers are paid based on the exchange-value of their labor-power, which is entirely up to the market forces. An individual cleaner for example, no matter how hard they work, will not be able to demand a pay raise, because there are many potential cleaners who'd be glad to take this same job for the lower wage instead. So despite their hard work a cleaner is not likely to ever make more than minimum wage. Also, there are quite some people who do not work at all, but live very comfortably from an inheritance or from stock dividends. Capitalism simply isn't a meritocracy, this is just a persistent myth.

[EvilRedGuy]

So what about handicapped peoples, Tjis?

Should they simple get less respect because they are unable to contribute more than their abilities allow them? Wtf?

And they will get less control of what the production will be like? I disagree with this, what should be produced is DECIDED collectively not based on what someone does, people unable to work should have as much power to decide the outcome as those who are capable of.

[Tjis]

So what about handicapped peoples, Tjis?

Should they simple get less respect because they are unable to contribute more than their abilities allow them? Wtf?
Respect is not something that can be controlled. Nobody can force someone to respect someone else. Respect is the appreciation of ones actions and a handicapped person is just as capable of earning the respect of their peers as any other person.
All I was saying is that if someone consistently works much harder than the people around him then those people around him will most likely respect him very much for that.

Besides, I very much doubt a handicapped person would necessarily be a slower worker. Obviously someone who is wheelchair-bound won't do very well in construction work, but they'd still do well in areas of work that do not require walking. They'd be just as capable of earning the respect of others as their co-workers.


And they will get less control of what the production will be like? I disagree with this, what should be produced is DECIDED collectively not based on what someone does, people unable to work should have as much power to decide the outcome as those who are capable of.
I agree, decisions must be made collectively. I wasn't really talking about the decision process though. What I mean is that each person has direct influence over the work they do themselves. Someone who assembles an engine won't have all their co-workers looking over their shoulders making micro-decisions as they go. Each worker has a certain degree of autonomy. And if one worker does more than another worker, this autonomy results in a larger influence over the end product.

EDIT: I disagree on one thing though. Someone who doesn't work should not be able to decide what is produced, or how it is produced. After all, if I work at site a and you work at site b, then neither of us should be able to have any control over each others work right? At most, site a and b might cooperate as equals to achieve some collective goal. So why should someone who works at neither site a or b (or anywhere else) have any control?

[Stynx]

Well I'm a student so you're wrong. Good explanation. Clear all my thoughts on salary-labour.