Work or starve

[Belleraphone]

I've noticed a lot of people on the left criticize the capitalist "Work or starve" idea. Thing is, in our new revolutionary society, I think someone who refuses to work should not receive the benefits of our society. Now I know that sometimes when people say Work or Starve they are referring to children or elderly people, but I am talking about able bodied, young/middle aged people, as this is the majority of the working class today. If someone does not wish to contribute to the products and well being of society, then I don't see why we should open up our hospitals, collective farms, and other things since they're not helping out. Any explanation on this?

[dodger]

I've noticed a lot of people on the left criticize the capitalist "Work or starve" idea. Thing is, in our new revolutionary society, I think someone who refuses to work should not receive the benefits of our society. Now I know that sometimes when people say Work or Starve they are referring to children or elderly people, but I am talking about able bodied, young/middle aged people, as this is the majority of the working class today. If someone does not wish to contribute to the products and well being of society, then I don't see why we should open up our hospitals, collective farms, and other things since they're not helping out. Any explanation on this?


Well said Bellerphone......ticks all my boxes.....indeed it does!

[roy]

Sounds fair. If people refuse to work, society collapses, be it capitalist or communist. Of course it goes without saying that certain people would be exempt from work due to some sort of ailment or whatever.

I believe "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" sums it up perfectly.

I also doubt people would try to dodge work, especially anymore than they do now. It all depends on conditioning.

[Zostrianos]

The problem is that when capitalists (US Republicans especially) say "work or starve" they also mean that people who can't work (elderly, disabled, etc.) shouldn't benefit either. So in principle, if you can work you should contribute, but the right wing Capitalist logic seeks to exclude those who can't work from benefits, and those benefits are then rerouted to big companies (like recently a few Republican state governors, I don't recall where, cut pensions to the elderly so they could give breaks to big companies) - if you don't bring in profit you're useless. People are just numbers to right wing capitalists, to chew up and spit out when they've exploited them enough.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Also the difference is that in capitalism there is not full employment generally and work is alienated.

I think workers would strive to get rid of unpleasant aspects of work - eliminating shit jobs and minimizing individual labor on jobs that can't be eliminated. The hours workers individually put in could be immediately shortened for most tasks (which would also help create full employment) and workers would be empowered to find more efficient ways to take care of necessary but maybe boring or unpleasant tasks. So if no one wants to be a full-time janitor then a workplace or community might just decide to require everyone to do a couple hours a month or something.

[Franz Fanonipants]

this is a dumb premise because NO ONE "refuses" to work

[ed miliband]

this is a dumb premise because NO ONE "refuses" to work

lol, you should see some members of my family.

[Red Noob]

It's simply a matter of having both "he who does not work, neither shall he eat" and "from each according, to his ability to each according to his need".

Don't have someone's motivation for working be a barrel of a gun, but rather 'if you think you can sit around all day and sleep in until noon, then you have very little understanding of how things work around here'.

[Firebrand]

I disagree. No-one should be forced to work. If people don't come to their own realization that it is best for everyone including themselves if they do their part then they will always resent the system that forces them to work. Besides as i've said before I think there's only so much lying in front of the telly eating crisps anyone can do without dying of a heart attack. A much better slogan would be, we won't make you work but you should be ashamed of yourself and we will laugh when we see how fat you've got. No-one really wants everyone to hate them, eventually nearly everyone can be guilt triped into helping out and if anyone does persist in living their lives in front of the TV they will eventually be weeded out by natural selection and will therefore no longer be an issue.

[Misanthrope]

this is a dumb premise because NO ONE "refuses" to work

have you heard of capitalists?

[Commissar Rykov]

have you heard of capitalists?
Technically Capitalists aren't refusing to work they are just exploiting others labor for maximum profit. The amount of time Capitalists put into managerial work =/= the amount of money they receive compared to their workers.

[Ele'ill]

Also the difference is that in capitalism there is not full employment generally and work is alienated.

I think workers would strive to get rid of unpleasant aspects of work - eliminating shit jobs and minimizing individual labor on jobs that can't be eliminated. The hours workers individually put in could be immediately shortened for most tasks (which would also help create full employment) and workers would be empowered to find more efficient ways to take care of necessary but maybe boring or unpleasant tasks. So if no one wants to be a full-time janitor then a workplace or community might just decide to require everyone to do a couple hours a month or something.

And you'd actually be able to get jobs that your natural skill-sets compliment- or even, jobs you enjoy! Opportunity would be much different than it is now.

[piet11111]

A lot of my work has an extremely high "WTF" factor.
Me and 6 colleagues spend 2 weeks planting 20.000 seeds for various plants alongside a main road knowing that around may they will bloom and that in june those ditches will be mechanically mowed right over those damned flowers.

For 30 days of shitty flowers (did i mention those seeds where moldy and put into soaked almost muddy ground ?) me and 6 others had to do a shit job for 2 weeks ?

This is what the municipality told us to do so we did it but if i had any control over my work i would never have wasted our time on such a wasteful project.

[Catma]

In the future one should hope work would be voluntary. I don't think we need EVERYONE to work once productivity rises high enough. It'll be like the military today. I'd volunteer for a term of productive service. Most people would, I think, knowing you'd get the rest of your life to sit around. Or, you get to sit around and then, when you're bored, start working.

That flower thing doesn't seem entirely pointless to me. Gotta stop and smell the roses, the world needs beauty. I might put a few days or a week (per year) into something like that, if I could have that count as employment.

[Tenka]

In the future one should hope work would be voluntary. I don't think we need EVERYONE to work once productivity rises high enough. It'll be like the military today. I'd volunteer for a term of productive service. Most people would, I think, knowing you'd get the rest of your life to sit around. Or, you get to sit around and then, when you're bored, start working.
This. Ever since I stopped being a Stalinist, I stopped believing that forced labour was a good idea. The motto "Work or Starve" begets nothing if not forced labour; and "from each according to their ability" is not necessarily a prerequisite for "to each according to their need," especially not with the sort of surplus that would come of people producing for people and not for capital.

As well, people should stop confusing reactionary Workerism* with Socialism. The working class needs to abolish itself eventually.

*I don't know if "Workerism" is the term I'm looking for. Labour fetishism?

[Belleraphone]

I disagree. No-one should be forced to work. If people don't come to their own realization that it is best for everyone including themselves if they do their part then they will always resent the system that forces them to work. Besides as i've said before I think there's only so much lying in front of the telly eating crisps anyone can do without dying of a heart attack. A much better slogan would be, we won't make you work but you should be ashamed of yourself and we will laugh when we see how fat you've got. No-one really wants everyone to hate them, eventually nearly everyone can be guilt triped into helping out and if anyone does persist in living their lives in front of the TV they will eventually be weeded out by natural selection and will therefore no longer be an issue.

Nobody should be forced to work, but if you refuse to (assuming you CAN work), you aren't entitled to public services.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Nobody should be forced to work, but if you refuse to (assuming you CAN work), you aren't entitled to public services.

That is exactly the same thing, that is exactly the same kind of coercion. Work or die, work or die. And "entitled to" appears to betray a certain unpleasant idea of services being a reward, like some sort of emulation of a capitalist wage. Not to mention the seeming simplicity of your argument, it lacks nuance, I think, lacks respect for the complex things and material realities. Refuse to work? What if the person wants to do something, but this is not needed, and the person refuses to do something really unpleasant which is all there is for this person to chose from? All the person's good at, whichever- etc.

[Renegade Saint]

If someone engages in anti-social behavior (and refusing to make a contribution to society when you have the means and the abilities is extremely anti-social) why should society have to support that person? Fuck that. To me that's the equivalent of saying you don't want to be a part of society. Fortunately I'm not worried that the notion that being a contributing member of society is optional will ever become popular.

The two guidelines for a socialist society:
"If a man (person) does not work, he shall not eat" and
"To each according to his(her) contribution"

[Leonid Brozhnev]

So food is a privilege? Like shelter, good health and clean water? Fuck living in your societies, all people should have access to these things regardless if they work or not. What qualifies as 'work' anyway? I'm a 3D Artist, am I going to eat less than a person who builds sprockets because you've deemed me less valuable to society? Don't make me puke.

[Prometeo liberado]

I've noticed a lot of people on the left criticize the capitalist "Work or starve" idea. Thing is, in our new revolutionary society, I think someone who refuses to work should not receive the benefits of our society. Now I know that sometimes when people say Work or Starve they are referring to children or elderly people, but I am talking about able bodied, young/middle aged people, as this is the majority of the working class today. If someone does not wish to contribute to the products and well being of society, then I don't see why we should open up our hospitals, collective farms, and other things since they're not helping out. Any explanation on this?
The second you start having to make a list of the criteria people must meet in order to eat and survive then you've abandoned the very least of what a just society will and should be. Further you lend yourself to taking on the ideology and characteristics of those whom we wish to supplant by ignoring long standing traditions and struggles of the Left, such as UNIVERSAL healthcare. What is the proper measure of said "contribution"? Sorry but your argument sounds much like most middle class arguments in that it reakes of the insane sense that maybe the ruling class really does look out for me.

I might be wrong.

[Prometeo liberado]

If someone engages in anti-social behavior (and refusing to make a contribution to society when you have the means and the abilities is extremely anti-social) why should society have to support that person? Fuck that. To me that's the equivalent of saying you don't want to be a part of society. Fortunately I'm not worried that the notion that being a contributing member of society is optional will ever become popular.

The two guidelines for a socialist society:
"If a man (person) does not work, he shall not eat" and
"To each according to his(her) contribution"
You already do it's called prison.

[dodger]

So food is a privilege? Like shelter, good health and clean water? Fuck living in your societies, all people should have access to these things regardless if they work or not. What qualifies as 'work' anyway? I'm a 3D Artist, am I going to eat less than a person who builds sprockets because you've deemed me less valuable to society? Don't make me puke.

Please slow down Asin...in my book 'work or starve' is pretty inclusive. What could be more just than that. Sure a progressive society might value 3d art as well as sprockets. All would be needed. Valued too. There is choice too....work or starve. The contribution of many might lead to a lighter load for all. Especially for a society that has mastered advance technique. Many academics enjoy a sabbatical...every 10trs....why not for train drivers? I speak with authority...I did that for 37yrs.....work...my brain has turned to mush. Even though we fought for a 35 hr week and gained, there were things I wanted to do....places to see and books to read. Nobody wants to see you puke, Asin, especially at Xmas...or Hogmany more apt. A collective approach is what is called for at the very least, it might seem a nightmare to some....we must work together to ensure it is not.

having said that, retired now, WORK, as we all say is a 4 letter word. the most vile we can utter. Corny, but still true. At the end of the day, the very point people are making clean water medics and food is not a privilege it requires labour to gather in the fruits.....No labour ...no fruits....

HAPPY HOGMANAY !!

[Decommissioner]

I've noticed a lot of people on the left criticize the capitalist "Work or starve" idea. Thing is, in our new revolutionary society, I think someone who refuses to work should not receive the benefits of our society. Now I know that sometimes when people say Work or Starve they are referring to children or elderly people, but I am talking about able bodied, young/middle aged people, as this is the majority of the working class today. If someone does not wish to contribute to the products and well being of society, then I don't see why we should open up our hospitals, collective farms, and other things since they're not helping out. Any explanation on this?

I disagree.

Socialism opens the door for liberation from labor, and we should escape notions of careerism, "productivity" and being bound by labor in general. We live in a society of over production even though we have poverty and unemployment. Socialism guarantees that all are able to be employed, and that we will only produce what we want/need as a society, so logically it wouldn't make any sense to have everyone working all the time.

I think there needs to be incentive for necessary labor. Things like shelter, food, and basic human rights need to be guaranteed.

I like the ideas alluded to in this work by James P. Cannon http://www.marxists.org/archive/cannon/works/1953/socialistamer.htm , particularly where he talks about calculating the amount of necessary labor one would need to work in their lifetime to make their contribution to society, and letting the individual decide at what pace they want to work it. I further believe this amount should be low (as there will be plenty of labor to go around) while also offering incentives, rather than coercion.

It seems a lot of leftists forget that that elimination of class society not only means the elimination of the bourgeoisie, but also that of the proletariat. We take over society as workers, not to continue being bound as workers, but to collectively run society and have more individual control of our own destiny.

[MarxSchmarx]

Belleraphone, you've raised a classic question and I think there are some great answers already.

However, I realize that a lot of our conventional answers, e.g., that work would be made pleasurable, that people want to work, etc... strike many people, at least under capitalism, as some what of cop-outs (although, to be sure, I largely agree with these answers).

So let us engage the question directly. Let us suppose we have full communism where "work" only takes a few hours a week, that people are raised to value such collective work, where parenting is compensated just as much as automobile assembly is, and so on. What do we do with the educated, able-bodied, able-minded young or middle-aged individual who says "screw you guys, I will watch re-runs all day on television whilst doing nothing else but perhaps eating cereal for the rest of my life"?

The answer is that society should not let this person starve. Not because we are particularly merciful (though we are that), but because such a person would reflect enormous investment in the form of education, the work of others, etc... and that the simple possibility that they will contribute to society to pay off that debt justifies keeping them alive so long as they refuse to work.

I tend to think society is perfectly justified restricting them to "bread, water and vitamin pills", providing only emergency medical care, and making them live in communal dormitories and denying the creature comforts. Or offering the choice to try to live in the savannahs or something but that invariably involves more "work" than staying in the village. But to let the "Malibu surfer" people starve to death because they are merely "lazy" does not serve society's interest any more than "rewarding" incorrigbly lazy simply because these people could in time actually be very productive members of society. I personaly suspect they will get bored and sick of their lazy lifestyle but the argument I present here does not require that to happen.


Making their lives comparatively and considerably poorer materially, but stopping just short of having them die of starvation or exposure (unless by informed deliberate choice) strikes me as a balanced response to this problem.

It avoids moral hazards by imposing a severe cost on sloth (basically deprivation of everything short of death), provides a humane, compassionate approach, and serves the interest of broader society by maintaining the labor of potentially productive individuals.

[Jimmie Higgins]

In the future one should hope work would be voluntary. I don't think we need EVERYONE to work once productivity rises high enough. It'll be like the military today. I'd volunteer for a term of productive service. Most people would, I think, knowing you'd get the rest of your life to sit around. Or, you get to sit around and then, when you're bored, start working.

That flower thing doesn't seem entirely pointless to me. Gotta stop and smell the roses, the world needs beauty. I might put a few days or a week (per year) into something like that, if I could have that count as employment.
Yeah when things get a little more stable and jobs and skills are evened out, I think there shouldn't be some mandated thing where you work or you don't get the full benefits of society. People may decide this is necessary initially just to keep everything functioning while workers reshape society to suit their needs.

And I think some other work rather than being privatized would be socialized so it would be more like chores. There are just some tasks that aren't really that interesting but most people want done. So some of these things would just be incorporated into daily life and not be this separate alienated thing called "work" that you have to do for a set period of time weather it's actually needed or not - and would be more like clearing the table after a meal or mowing the lawn. Community members could just organize a schedule for shifts at a communal dining hall, so one night ever other week you work a couple hours cleaning tables or doing the dishes and once a month you work in a communal laundry. Then the rest of the time you could "work" an occupation you wanted, that was actually out of interest, you could go to school or do fuck all. Maybe the condition of getting free meals in that communal dining area is that you sign up to help run it.

[piet11111]

That flower thing doesn't seem entirely pointless to me. Gotta stop and smell the roses, the world needs beauty. I might put a few days or a week (per year) into something like that, if I could have that count as employment.

here take one of these

http://www.sneeboervandriel.nl/42/sneeboervandriel.nl/upload/398/42/VD_52_00_Aardappelpoter_V_V_300.jpg

20.000 potato sized seeds and along a long and windy & rainy road where trucks come driving by at an arms lenght.

All the while knowing that in the villages there are enough streets and parking lots that need to be brushed clean of weeds.

[Belleraphone]

That is exactly the same thing, that is exactly the same kind of coercion. Work or die, work or die. And "entitled to" appears to betray a certain unpleasant idea of services being a reward, like some sort of emulation of a capitalist wage. Not to mention the seeming simplicity of your argument, it lacks nuance, I think, lacks respect for the complex things and material realities. Refuse to work? What if the person wants to do something, but this is not needed, and the person refuses to do something really unpleasant which is all there is for this person to chose from? All the person's good at, whichever- etc.

Well, maybe like MarxSmarcks said, they could still use our hospitals and get food, but I don't see why society should provide them with something like electricity or transportation if they're just mooching off of us. Obviously we aren't going to be working nearly as much as we do now, but members of the old bourgeois might refuse to work because their lifestyles are not as decadent.

[black magick hustla]

society has been through numerous arrangements in history, from primitive communism, feudalism, etc and no society has every "collapsed" because people were "lazy". people build shit and look for ways to eat. the "lazy boogeyman" is a fiction of protestants, anticommunists, etc

[black magick hustla]

the way we "work" today was engineered by a capitalist society, it is not a snapshot of the past nor of the future. shifts, careers, hourly rates, labor days, vacation days, etc would blow the minds of our ancestors

[Jimmie Higgins]

the way we "work" today was engineered by a capitalist society, it is not a snapshot of the past nor of the future. shifts, careers, hourly rates, labor days, vacation days, etc would blow the minds of our ancestorsAnd the way people used to work would blow people's minds today. Sure it was shitty in it's own way and I don't want to sugar-coat pre-capitalist life, but it was noticeably "alien" to what people think of as work today.

If work as we know it under capitalism is "natural" why did early factories have to have whistles to tell people when it was time to come to work?! It's totally unnatural to work X number of hours X days a week - peasants didn't even do that, they worked when there was work to do or when they were compelled to directly. Agricultural and semi-nomadic bands also worked only when there was work to do. Aside from the demands of those societie's class structures, the main manager of work was still the natural world - had to work in harvest times, less field work in winter, no work when there was little work needed. Now it's profit, not nature that plays a role in dictating how and when we work.

[Renegade Saint]

1. For the foreseeable future there's going to be work that needs to be done that's not inherently rewarding for the most part (ie, work that people wouldn't normally do it without compensation of some sort). As long as such work is necessary it should be spread out as much as possible. I think it's eminently fair to ask students, artists, intellectuals and the like to do some, for lack of a better term, community service-perhaps as little as 15 hours a week. It's certainly more fair than asking a small number of people to dedicate their lives to doing jobs that people in those groups I mentioned consider beneath them.

2. According to psychologists about 1% of the population is sociopathic. So, yes, coercion (or more likely merely implied force) will likely be necessary to keep people like that from running amok and taking advantage of society.

[NewLeft]

What do you mean by work? Because there's already plenty of unpaid (or unaccounted) labour that isn't considered "work".. Would that still be left unaccouned for in this socialist society?

[Zav]

this is a dumb premise because NO ONE "refuses" to work
I refuse to work, therefore your statement is invalid.

[Commissar Rykov]

I refuse to work, therefore your statement is invalid.
No you refuse to interact with Capitalist Society that is not the same as refusing to work.

[danyboy27]

Well, maybe like MarxSmarcks said, they could still use our hospitals and get food, but I don't see why society should provide them with something like electricity or transportation if they're just mooching off of us.
Beccause the ''cost'' of taking away all those ressources from these folks would eventually greater than what you might save from it.

lets say you cut the social services of a group of people who in your definition, dont ''work"", then what?

those people will eventually get together, feeling rejected by society, probably squat abandonned sector of town and cities, resorting to crime, creating breeding ground for disease and criminality.

now lets suppose you guys are tired of those group of people making trouble, what are you gonna do? you will have to either kill them or jail them and repeat the process on a regular basis.

You will need jail, cops, weapons, death squad and a whole lot of bureaucracy to manage the whole thing.

Trust me, its more simple to just share the services equally.

[Firebrand]

According to psychologists about 1% of the population is sociopathic. So, yes, coercion (or more likely merely implied force) will likely be necessary to keep people like that from running amok and taking advantage of society.

But most of that sociopathic 1% is probably sociopathic because of the brutalizing effects of capitalism. Besides I reckon boredom could drive even sociopaths to make themselves useful.

And to ensure that people get bored easily we could limit the hours that TV broadcasts for. In fact if you shut off all electricity except the heating for 4 hours a day not only would it reduce our carbon footprint, it would ensure that the lazy get bored enough to contribute.

[Renegade Saint]

But most of that sociopathic 1% is probably sociopathic because of the brutalizing effects of capitalism. Besides I reckon boredom could drive even sociopaths to make themselves useful.

And to ensure that people get bored easily we could limit the hours that TV broadcasts for. In fact if you shut off all electricity except the heating for 4 hours a day not only would it reduce our carbon footprint, it would ensure that the lazy get bored enough to contribute.
That I highly doubt. If that were the case a much higher percentage of the population would be sociopaths. And since I'm not really qualified to speculate on the causes of personality disorders I'll leave that to experts.

On further research, it appears that the proportion of sociopaths may be as high as 4%. And considering that there's no known cure as of yet, I'd say it represents a serious problem to those who reject any form of coercion or authority (even a democratic one).

[Firebrand]

That I highly doubt. If that were the case a much higher percentage of the population would be sociopaths. And since I'm not really qualified to speculate on the causes of personality disorders I'll leave that to experts.

On further research, it appears that the proportion of sociopaths may be as high as 4%. And considering that there's no known cure as of yet, I'd say it represents a serious problem to those who reject any form of coercion or authority (even a democratic one).

Not everyone exposed to the brutalizing effects of capitalism becomes a sociopath, however in a situation where the dominant values of society are to put your own interests before everyones else, and to walk over other peoples bodies as stepping stones to your own sucess is it surprising that some people respond by losing their ability to empathise with others. In a society where by helping others you help yourself and by helping yourself you help others this pressure to disregard others humanity cannot exist and far fewer people would become sociopathic.
While people may have a predisposition towards sociopathy that doesn't mean that the fact that the system in which we grow up glorifies sociopathic traits doesn't have an impact.

[dodger]

Obviously sociopaths would continue to be locked up and let out on license. The ones who have committed crime. Unemployable because nobody in their right mind would work with one. Carry on as usual. Nice carrot and big stick. My Bro runs a home nicely furnished a room clean good facilities and support. He and staff monitor the people sent by Home Office. Best hope is, if they cannot be productive, they can be stopped from being unproductive.

[StalinFanboy]

fuck work.

Im just gonna be a badass renegade bandit atr. straight jackin shit.

[ckaihatsu]

In the interests of, uh, reinforcing cultural stereotypes about Asians -- since you're seeing my name and not my face -- I'd just like to take the "Technology" political hard line here (but not that A.I. b.s.) and say, "Kick back! Even *despite* capitalism's destructiveness and backwardness, it has borne fruits that, within moments now, will ripen and render moot that 'heretofore' paradigm altogether, ushering us into that shit that the sunnier type of religious person is always going on about. Or, fill in the blank yourself -- that would be the point then, anyway, entirely."

So, although I'd rather not have to spell it out -- for the record, let's just say that there *is* such a thing as an apolitical or post-political quiescence once there is no longer any extant reason for issue-making and contentiousness. This 'quiescence' would probably be directly proportional to the amount of past scarcity overcome by a society. (We could even perhaps frame it as a complex, mountainous terrain of scarcity, sufficiency, and abundance / 'quiescence' over every commodity in existence.)

Once the basics of life are as available as the time of day there wouldn't even be any politics *remaining* -- not in the sense of cutthroat private factions against one another, anyway. Politics would be freed to be entirely *constructive*, and the least concern over 'work inputs' from *anyone* would instantly vanish at the same moment that the thought occurred to someone since "work" would not exist anymore. No one would have the social / political or material means by which *to* coerce anyone else, and the collective work output of a fully technological society would, in its entirety, directly reflect the politics and willingness of all of its inhabitants, by definition.

Add to that the state of the current world situation and some might say the capitalists are getting so shaky now that they won't last another Halloween...!

[lots of laughs]

Yeah. I'm going to say that work or starve is a right-wing idea. And that as a leftist, I oppose it in all forms. In a true communist society, assuming there is sufficient technological progress, which there has been right now, there will be sufficient food for all. Regardless of if everyone works. And if no one works, then I guess I don't care if communism collapses, because it would have been a failure. (In the far future, there will be no need for anyone to work. Let machines do the work.) So, fuck you right-wing scum who aren't communists but go around calling yourselves communists.

[Belleraphone]

Beccause the ''cost'' of taking away all those ressources from these folks would eventually greater than what you might save from it.

lets say you cut the social services of a group of people who in your definition, dont ''work"", then what?

those people will eventually get together, feeling rejected by society, probably squat abandonned sector of town and cities, resorting to crime, creating breeding ground for disease and criminality.

now lets suppose you guys are tired of those group of people making trouble, what are you gonna do? you will have to either kill them or jail them and repeat the process on a regular basis.

You will need jail, cops, weapons, death squad and a whole lot of bureaucracy to manage the whole thing.

Trust me, its more simple to just share the services equally.
Why would people get together and then start a war with society? It's much more likely that they would just work when the benefits of society are deprived from them.

[dodger]

I tend to care as much about others as they care about me....the working class...early socialist construction will look pretty different at times and places where it may emerge. We may inherit a moonscape or a bountiful place rich in patrimony with human assets and skills to match. Either way it will require labour and organization to right things. I don't trust any militarized form of labour, so I am content if we are to embark on an inclusive mode of production initially controlled by a working class. Anyone not prepared to contribute forfeits. The contribution of the many must ensure the lightening of burden to the individual. It ensures a voice in how, why where tasks are set out and achieved by all. We can all put our stamp on things. If others choose not to partake...oh well...shame...their choice....there will undoubted be consequences. Belleraphone.....your phrase "work or starve" stands, with just the tiniest bit of tongue in cheek, perhaps.

Dodger doesn't relish pulling Chestnuts out of the fire for others at the best of times. He certainly would not throw himself body and soul into any enterprise. In short it would be intolerable.

Right wing scum....yes there is a lot of it about these days...left/right/left/right all gets a bit confusing political correctness though I have a sure footed instinct where my interests might lie. Working whilst some bum is on the take doesn't ring my bell. Others might not agree...but the main thing there is collective thought on the matter. We carry on talking it through. Perhaps nearer the time it will concentrate our minds better. At present we have millions denied any sort of life due to unemployment, that's what we need to provide answers to.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Why would people get together and then start a war with society? It's much more likely that they would just work when the benefits of society are deprived from them.

Yes, cut those bum's welfare! Damned welfare queens mooching off respectable citizen! Cut their benefits and they'll go' get a job! :rolleyes:

[danyboy27]

Why would people get together and then start a war with society? It's much more likely that they would just work when the benefits of society are deprived from them.

You obviously have no idea what a marginalisation process does to people.
I do, i fucking been there myself, and i can certify you that the people left behind by a society for a reason or another get their shit together for the better or for the worst, human being have been doing this for millenia.

People on welfare tend to stick to other peoples on welfare, homeless and dispossesed do the same, i fail to see why this couldnt happen if you would cut all social help from a bunch of people who dosnt ''work''.

[Renegade Saint]

Not everyone exposed to the brutalizing effects of capitalism becomes a sociopath, however in a situation where the dominant values of society are to put your own interests before everyones else, and to walk over other peoples bodies as stepping stones to your own sucess is it surprising that some people respond by losing their ability to empathise with others. In a society where by helping others you help yourself and by helping yourself you help others this pressure to disregard others humanity cannot exist and far fewer people would become sociopathic.
While people may have a predisposition towards sociopathy that doesn't mean that the fact that the system in which we grow up glorifies sociopathic traits doesn't have an impact.
Again, I'm not going to engage in amateur psychological diagnostics. Just speculating on what causes sociopathy when there's a lot of research done by people who actually know what they're talking about is a waste of time.

[Rafiq]

In capitalism you work or starve for someone else.

In socialism you work or starve for the good of society as a whole.

[Rafiq]

The problem is that when capitalists (US Republicans especially) say "work or starve" they also mean that people who can't work (elderly, disabled, etc.) shouldn't benefit either. So in principle, if you can work you should contribute, but the right wing Capitalist logic seeks to exclude those who can't work from benefits, and those benefits are then rerouted to big companies (like recently a few Republican state governors, I don't recall where, cut pensions to the elderly so they could give breaks to big companies) - if you don't bring in profit you're useless. People are just numbers to right wing capitalists, to chew up and spit out when they've exploited them enough.

The problem is what they are working for. Workers can either work to make another man richer or starve and die.

[ckaihatsu]

Eeeen Stah-leen-eest Raw-shah thee *locky* once *gate* to werk bay-fore thay starf....


x D

[Firebrand]

Again, I'm not going to engage in amateur psychological diagnostics. Just speculating on what causes sociopathy when there's a lot of research done by people who actually know what they're talking about is a waste of time.

Thats assuming that a. They do know what they're talking about. They really don't. The human mind is so poorly understood that almost everything we think we know could be wrong. Trust me, I've been reading up on brain science.

and b. that their conclusions are not in any way influenced by the dominant ideology of our times i.e. capitalism. and to be honest its hard to see how they couldn't be affected by that.

[Firebrand]

Why would people get together and then start a war with society? .

What you mean like we have :laugh:
Isn't this whole website an exercise in people getting together to start a war with society?

[Red Noob]

If you're a mooch, then you're exploiting the workers. Simple enough.

[Renegade Saint]

Thats assuming that a. They do know what they're talking about. They really don't. The human mind is so poorly understood that almost everything we think we know could be wrong. Trust me, I've been reading up on brain science.

and b. that their conclusions are not in any way influenced by the dominant ideology of our times i.e. capitalism. and to be honest its hard to see how they couldn't be affected by that.
I'm 100% sure they have a better idea what they're talking about when it comes to the causes of sociopathy than you do.

If you want to publish something in a peer-reviewed journal that overturns all the established theories on sociopathy be my guest. Or take the short cut and find some published experts who agree with you. It shouldn't be that hard.

[Firebrand]

I'm 100% sure they have a better idea what they're talking about when it comes to the causes of sociopathy than you do.

If you want to publish something in a peer-reviewed journal that overturns all the established theories on sociopathy be my guest. Or take the short cut and find some published experts who agree with you. It shouldn't be that hard.

Well i've been reading some stuff by Steven Rose who is a neuroscientist and as far as I can tell he has a very low opinion of psychologists. And thinks that overall there is a massive and troubling tendency in treatment of mental illness to focus purely on the physical whilst totally ignoring social factors. There is a good chapter on psychopathy in his book "The 21st centuary brain" I think.

And basically you are saying that no-one who isn't a scientist has the right to criticise scientific theories when they think that there is a flaw in the science. I mean take ADHD, there's a socially constructed disease if ever there was one. Yes some of the kids diagnosed do actually have ADHD, but the vast majority just find school boring for good reason.
I really dont like the way that drugs are automatically prescribed for mental conditions that are very poorly understood and may be as much a result of social factors as physical ones. You don't really need to read very far before you find how poorly understood most psychiatric conditions are.

[ckaihatsu]

[M]ental conditions [...] are very poorly understood and may be as much a result of social factors as physical ones. You don't really need to read very far before you find how poorly understood most psychiatric conditions are.


Not to mention the overarching realm of power relations that encompasses societal / political definitions of health (and 'work'), with all of the attendant asymmetrical dynamics that accompany it, like patronage and clientelism.

[KR]

Yeah when things get a little more stable and jobs and skills are evened out, I think there shouldn't be some mandated thing where you work or you don't get the full benefits of society. People may decide this is necessary initially just to keep everything functioning while workers reshape society to suit their needs.

And I think some other work rather than being privatized would be socialized so it would be more like chores. There are just some tasks that aren't really that interesting but most people want done. So some of these things would just be incorporated into daily life and not be this separate alienated thing called "work" that you have to do for a set period of time weather it's actually needed or not - and would be more like clearing the table after a meal or mowing the lawn. Community members could just organize a schedule for shifts at a communal dining hall, so one night ever other week you work a couple hours cleaning tables or doing the dishes and once a month you work in a communal laundry. Then the rest of the time you could "work" an occupation you wanted, that was actually out of interest, you could go to school or do fuck all. Maybe the condition of getting free meals in that communal dining area is that you sign up to help run it.
Wait wait i dont imagine communism as being some hippie communal collective, i will eat in my own house and do laundry in my own house, just like i do today.

[KR]

But most of that sociopathic 1% is probably sociopathic because of the brutalizing effects of capitalism. Besides I reckon boredom could drive even sociopaths to make themselves useful.

And to ensure that people get bored easily we could limit the hours that TV broadcasts for. In fact if you shut off all electricity except the heating for 4 hours a day not only would it reduce our carbon footprint, it would ensure that the lazy get bored enough to contribute.
That is a wery, wery bad idea. If such an idea would be implemented post revolution i would fight against the revolution.

[Agent Ducky]

Work in capitalism is different. You're basically forced into submission to a boss. Forced to sell your labor and produce things that you don't own in the end. That's the objection to "Work or Starve" it's not just "work" it's "sell your labor to the capitalists or starve". In a communist society you wouldn't be selling your labor so there's not the same objection.

[RedGrunt]

Wait wait i dont imagine communism as being some hippie communal collective, i will eat in my own house and do laundry in my own house, just like i do today.

Wait, what?

You don't see communism as rendering individualist relations obsolete? Communism is not communal? How can communism be anything but the increased socialization of relations within society?

[KR]

Wait, what?

You don't see communism as rendering individualist relations obsolete? Communism is not communal? How can communism be anything but the increased socialization of relations within society?
Wait what? I honestly dont know what your talking about, but no, for me communism is not communal in the way that everyone eats together, everyone does laundry together, i dont imagine communism as being one big family. I like to eat just with my family or my close friends or just by myself, i would hate if every night i would have ti eat toghether with 100 other people, and i would hate to have to go to some communal laundry in order to do the laundry.

[Firebrand]

That is a wery, wery bad idea. If such an idea would be implemented post revolution i would fight against the revolution.

That was meant to be a joke :rolleyes:

[Firebrand]

Wait what? I honestly dont know what your talking about, but no, for me communism is not communal in the way that everyone eats together, everyone does laundry together, i dont imagine communism as being one big family. I like to eat just with my family or my close friends or just by myself, i would hate if every night i would have ti eat toghether with 100 other people, and i would hate to have to go to some communal laundry in order to do the laundry.

Well you don't have to eat together, if you like you can cook in your home, or even have ready meals. But it should be an option. Lots of people don't like cooking, and do like spending time in big social environments. Besides don't you like going to restraunts, cafes and stuff, i envision communal dining areas being more along those lines. except without the capitalism. I mean I wouldn't want to eat in a communal dining area all the time, sometimes I want a TV dinner, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't like it some of the time.
I certainly don't envision it like a school lunch hall or a work canteen.
As for laundry, you can do your own if you want but i'm dumping mine for someone else to do.

[danyboy27]

In capitalism you work or starve for someone else.

In socialism you work or starve for the good of society as a whole.

Nobody starve for the good of society, beccause a starving or sick person is a nuisance for society has a whole and its a recipie for war and societal clashes.
Why do you think welfare was implented in capitalists countries in the first place? beccause the price to pay to not feed all those people would be fucking greater than the gain one would make by just letting them starve into the streets. There will always be people not working for various reasons, some would probably cheat the system, but if you want a true faiisafe way to be sure nobody cheat you will have to just kick everyone out of welfare beccause like it or not, everything created by humans have flaws.

P.S: ruthless peoples like you make me sick, but what make me really want to puke is the fact that you are not a right winger. I expect from these clowns to envision an utopian society where people would starve, but its harder for me to hear that from a leftist, really make me sick.

[Rafiq]

I mean to say that in socialism you must work to get cool shit, but the difference is that your doing it for the good of society as a whole as opposed to expanding the profit of one parasitic individual. I don't know if work or starve is going to be necessary (probably not) but it's definetly not ruthless or a punishment, it would just mean not enough food was produced.

[Rafiq]

Danyboy your head is so far up your anus you lack the social skills necessary to interperate another person's post. The very fact you think I, or any Leftist for that matter thinks starving human beings is somehow acceptable is a signal of your Liberalism.

I mean, you shit head, this "work or starve" crap would only imply that the situation is desperate (as they are not in welfarestate nations). For example, if you decided not to work withoit a good reason during a time of harsh conditions(postrevolution) you obviously would have to be provided with left-overs.

Seriously fuck you. Fucking Liberal Ethically absolutist shit head. I see your posts. They're all humanist crap.

[Rafiq]

I mean you literally come to these bizzare and obscure conclusions to satisfy your moralist hunger. The very Idea of "work or starve for" does not imply you "starve for socialism", rather, should those be the only options (which I did not say they will be) socialism has the moral authority here.

I was merely pointing out wage slavery doesn't exist in socialism. That is ALL.

But here comes danyboy giving himself a moralist orgasm critisizing a straw man.

[RedGrunt]

I don't understand why someone would be allowed not to work in a society that isn't yet post-scarcity(at least). If you are doing nothing productive for the society that is taken care of you then why should they bother? As per the arts or whatever, I would hope it would be at the point where there is not a distinction between manual and mental labor. Both should be required of everyone.

[Tovarisch]

I'm sorry, but "I don't like working" is not a very good answer. Now "work" does not necessarily mean lifting pipes or doing cubicle jobs. You can contribute to the society by having having a small farm, or planting flowers at a local garden, or simply cleaning the streets. There are so many jobs in the world that can get accomplished, but the government doesn't want to pay up

I'm not for "work or starve" policy, as it is draconian, but what I am for is contributing to the society. Communism requires participation from everyone. You're not going to starve from not doing anything, but don't expect others to like you

[Rafiq]

This is why I oppose Speculation about a hypothetical socialist societies... It's Utopian rubbish and Idealist at best.

We start sounding like the bourgeoisie, in regards to work

[ckaihatsu]

Wait what? I honestly dont know what your talking about, but no, for me communism is not communal in the way that everyone eats together, everyone does laundry together, i dont imagine communism as being one big family. I like to eat just with my family or my close friends or just by myself, i would hate if every night i would have ti eat toghether with 100 other people, and i would hate to have to go to some communal laundry in order to do the laundry.





Wait, what?

You don't see communism as rendering individualist relations obsolete? Communism is not communal? How can communism be anything but the increased socialization of relations within society?





Well you don't have to eat together, if you like you can cook in your home, or even have ready meals. But it should be an option. Lots of people don't like cooking, and do like spending time in big social environments. Besides don't you like going to restraunts, cafes and stuff, i envision communal dining areas being more along those lines. except without the capitalism. I mean I wouldn't want to eat in a communal dining area all the time, sometimes I want a TV dinner, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't like it some of the time.
I certainly don't envision it like a school lunch hall or a work canteen.
As for laundry, you can do your own if you want but i'm dumping mine for someone else to do.


These are mostly *consumeristic* questions / issues, so the realization of 'x' option for eating / dining, recreation, socializing, etc. would be almost *non-political*.

I'll note that a "room of one's own" might come to be considered a basic human right, as with housing in general.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Room_of_One's_Own

I think the only definite proviso would be that residences would necessarily have to be located around workplaces, especially around mass-industrial-production ones, for reasons of political self-determination, especially in the revolutionary transition from capitalism to socialism.





I don't understand why someone would be allowed not to work in a society that isn't yet post-scarcity(at least).


I think this is a solid political point, and I agree with you, but not for the *moralistic* reason you're giving:





If you are doing nothing productive for the society that is taken care of you then why should they bother?


Rather, more to the point would be the *political* argument that the revolution should be defended and advanced with full force -- it would be everyone's political duty to participate in the mass struggle until proletarian independence is achieved.





As per the arts or whatever, I would hope it would be at the point where there is not a distinction between manual and mental labor. Both should be required of everyone.


Artistic expression -- and even 'work', for that matter -- cannot be "required" of *anyone*.

[RedGrunt]

Rather, more to the point would be the *political* argument that the revolution should be defended and advanced with full force -- it would be everyone's political duty to participate in the mass struggle until proletarian independence is achieved.

How is saying political duty any less moralistic? To say that one should be taken care of by society despite not extending such in return would be moralistic(which we're going against). Moralism has to do with what is right to do. I questioned why society would bother to help someone if it isn't returned.

From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs.

Sounds like they require each other to me.

[ckaihatsu]

How is saying political duty any less moralistic?


(Revolutionary) politics references the overall objective world, while moralistic positions are subject to subjectivity.





To say that one should be taken care of by society despite not extending such in return would be moralistic(which we're going against).


I'm sorry, but with that statement you're arguing from a position of idealism (a-materialism) -- you're asserting a value judgment without considering how much material surplus might be available for any given societal / civilizational reality.





Moralism has to do with what is right to do. I questioned why society would bother to help someone if it isn't returned.


If you insist on sticking to this line you'll soon wind up in the company of right-wing conservatives -- this line is premised on a 'zero-sum' conception of the economy / society, and would be even *less* valid given the development of a humane, post-capitalist fully-socialized mode of production.






From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs.

Sounds like they require each other to me.


Please note that this construction is *non-linear* -- the two variables *cannot* be matched up to each other, one-for-one, for any given individual, or for any grouping of individuals. On the whole, in actuality, the realization of this principle would require an enlightened, equitable give-and-take kind of politics throughout.

[RedGrunt]

(Revolutionary) politics references the overall objective world, while moralistic positions are subject to subjectivity.

My point is your use of duty, that which is right action and what is owed, is moral. You were saying my comment was moral, and it was, but your criticism would be more justified if you replaced it with idealist. Yours was moralistic too, that there is a political duty, however subjected to class struggle(materialist) it is.

My statement was pretty much implicating the golden law, so it was indeed moralistic - and one posed as an absolute(idealist).



I'm sorry, but with that statement you're arguing from a position of idealism (a-materialism) -- you're asserting a value judgment without considering how much material surplus might be available for any given societal / civilizational reality.What you quoted for this response was not idealist. To say that it is right, wrong, or due to do this is to speak of morality.

If you meant what you criticized as moralistic, that is; "If you are doing nothing productive for the society that is taken care of you then why should they bother? "
Then, yes, I wasn't taking into account material surplus in that statement.





If you insist on sticking to this line you'll soon wind up in the company of right-wing conservatives -- this line is premised on a 'zero-sum' conception of the economy / society, and would be even *less* valid given the development of a humane, post-capitalist fully-socialized mode of production."Morality has to do with what is right to do. I questioned why society would bother to help someone if it isn't returned. "

Fair enough, I think thats a bit drastic of a statement though.

What's humane btw?




Please note that this construction is *non-linear* -- the two variables *cannot* be matched up to each other, one-for-one, for any given individual, or for any grouping of individuals. On the whole, in actuality, the realization of this principle would require an enlightened, equitable give-and-take kind of politics throughout.To be honest, I was wrong. Though, I don't really understand the last sentence too well.(italics)



Artistic expression -- and even 'work', for that matter -- cannot be "required" of *anyone*. Also, to go backwards, I agree. My choice of "required" was ill. My point was that there shouldn't be a division of laborers in regard to a manual and mental labor division, as others have brought up jobs such as a writer, and other arts.

If you don't think work is required of anyone, though, then I am curious why you said it would be a political duty, unless you don't think it would be "required" in a higher communist society?

[danyboy27]

I mean to say that in socialism you must work to get cool shit, but the difference is that your doing it for the good of society as a whole as opposed to expanding the profit of one parasitic individual. I don't know if work or starve is going to be necessary (probably not) but it's definetly not ruthless or a punishment, it would just mean not enough food was produced.
Well, its obvious that the people who work get more stuff that the people who dosnt, but this is not what you said anyway.

Also, if there was a food shortage, I am pretty sure the food would get to those who are weaker like the children, elderly and sick peoples, regardless of how much they work. The only reason i could see to priorize those who work in such extreme situation would be beccause if there are no workers to get food, everybody would die.

[danyboy27]

Danyboy your head is so far up your anus you lack the social skills necessary to interperate another person's post. The very fact you think I, or any Leftist for that matter thinks starving human beings is somehow acceptable is a signal of your Liberalism.
.
English is not my first language in case you havnt noticed, so when someone tell something like you did, how the fuck am i supposed to interpret it? there are many people in this verry thread who agree that ''those who mooch the system should starve'' your comment seemed to be in agreement with them.
i am not a liberal but i aknowledge that there are crazies on the left, fucked up human being who wouldnt mind having poor peoples killed on the spot.



I mean, you shit head, this "work or starve" crap would only imply that the situation is desperate (as they are not in welfarestate nations). For example, if you decided not to work withoit a good reason during a time of harsh conditions(postrevolution) you obviously would have to be provided with left-overs.

and how am i supposed to know this is what you meant? you might have not noticed but there are actually people in this thread who support the idea of have people on welfare deprived from social services.
Then again, please try to understand english is not my first language.



Seriously fuck you. Fucking Liberal Ethically absolutist shit head. I see your posts. They're all humanist crap.
I am not a liberal and i am not an absolutist.

Thanks you for this post tho, at least it gave me the opportunity to understand your point of view. seriously how the fuck was i supposed to to that with 2 simplistic statement anyway.

[danyboy27]

I mean you literally come to these bizzare and obscure conclusions to satisfy your moralist hunger. The very Idea of "work or starve for" does not imply you "starve for socialism", rather, should those be the only options (which I did not say they will be) socialism has the moral authority here.

I was merely pointing out wage slavery doesn't exist in socialism. That is ALL.

But here comes danyboy giving himself a moralist orgasm critisizing a straw man.
All this could have been avoided if you would have put the necessary work to explain your point of view instead of posting 2 stupid cryptic lines with your secret message in it.

From the look of it you seemed to agree with the other assoles who dont care about the people on welfare, and i cant fucking stand this kind of human being.

But now that i know you are not that kind of assole, i guess i owe you an apology.

[danyboy27]

I don't understand why someone would be allowed not to work in a society that isn't yet post-scarcity(at least). If you are doing nothing productive for the society that is taken care of you then why should they bother? As per the arts or whatever, I would hope it would be at the point where there is not a distinction between manual and mental labor. Both should be required of everyone.

Well, first beccause it does not work. Has i pointed out earlier, the costs of such measure will offset what you would save by not giving those peoples services anyway.

There is many things that can be done to help people unwilling to work to contribute, and depriving them from shelter and food isnt one of them.

[ckaihatsu]

My point is your use of duty, that which is right action and what is owed, is moral. You were saying my comment was moral, and it was, but your criticism would be more justified if you replaced it with idealist. Yours was moralistic too, that there is a political duty, however subjected to class struggle(materialist) it is.

My statement was pretty much implicating the golden law, so it was indeed moralistic - and one posed as an absolute(idealist).


I'll counterpose the concept of self- and collective-class-interest to your invocation of 'moral'. (Also see my 'political statement' at my user profile for a full illustration of this.)





What you quoted for this response was not idealist. To say that it is right, wrong, or due to do this is to speak of morality.


If you like. (I *could* nit-pick and bicker, but I'd rather not.)





If you meant what you criticized as moralistic, that is; "If you are doing nothing productive for the society that is taken care of you then why should they bother? "
Then, yes, I wasn't taking into account material surplus in that statement.




"Morality has to do with what is right to do. I questioned why society would bother to help someone if it isn't returned. "

Fair enough, I think thats a bit drastic of a statement though.


*What's* a bit drastic of a statement?





What's humane btw?


'Humane' means prioritizing social activity so that it addresses unmet basic human needs.





To be honest, I was wrong. Though, I don't really understand the last sentence too well.(italics)


No prob. I mean to say that the realization of that principle from _The Communist Manifesto_ would not be realized in a hands-off, *emergent* way, but instead would require a collectively conscious post-capitalist mass administration to coordinate things in accordance with that principle.





Also, to go backwards, I agree.


Glad to hear it. What do you mean by qualifying your agreement with "to go backwards"?





My choice of "required" was ill. My point was that there shouldn't be a division of laborers in regard to a manual and mental labor division, as others have brought up jobs such as a writer, and other arts.


Certainly. Agreed.





If you don't think work is required of anyone,


I never said "I don't think work is required of anyone." The question that's always in front of humanity under the class division is how to dispose of society's material surplus.





though, then I am curious why you said it would be a political duty, unless you don't think it would be "required" in a higher communist society?


The issue of how to dispose of society's material surplus implies a politics of some sort -- for revolutionaries this necessarily is about the class struggle, entirely.

A post-capitalist, post-socialism communism would have thoroughly annihilated the class division so that there would no longer be any *class* of workers (commodified labor). Humanity would be free to collectively decide how to administer both things and people.



[8] communist economy diagram

http://postimage.org/image/1bvfo0ohw/

[RedGrunt]

Glad to hear it. What do you mean by qualifying your agreement with "to go backwards"?All I meant with backwards is to go to the earlier posts, as I hadn't responded to that statement until my last post. I certainly wasn't implying it as an insult, or anything. What did you think I meant?



I never said "I don't think work is required of anyone." The question that's always in front of humanity under the class division is how to dispose of society's material surplus." Artistic expression -- and even 'work', for that matter -- cannot be "required" of *anyone*. "
As I quoted, you did infact say that. You said it in your first reply to me in response to;

As per the arts or whatever, I would hope it would be at the point where there is not a distinction between manual and mental labor. Both should be required of everyone. It's seems pretty clear you were indeed referring to a communist society, where work would lose its modern meaning, so to speak. I wasn't implying you were saying we can live without working.

"Rather, more to the point would be the *political* argument that the revolution should be defended and advanced with full force -- it would be everyone's political duty to participate in the mass struggle until proletarian independence is achieved. "

Here you weren't referring to a full communist society. This was what I was asking in my last post.


Morality is more than just bourgeois or the ruling class' morality, most likely posing absolutely and idealistically as a means to enforce their rule. This is my point, and your criticism that I originally responded to shouldn't be about being moralistic, but being idealistic and absolute. Morality should be subjugated to the class struggle, not based on absolutist thinking(idealistic), and based on current material factors which was the nature of your "political duty".

[Tomhet]

I think under Socialism humanity will become much more efficient, as in, more can be produced for far less work/effort..

[ckaihatsu]

All I meant with backwards is to go to the earlier posts, as I hadn't responded to that statement until my last post. I certainly wasn't implying it as an insult, or anything. What did you think I meant?


No biggie, just wanted to clarify.






" Artistic expression -- and even 'work', for that matter -- cannot be "required" of *anyone*. "
As I quoted, you did infact say that. You said it in your first reply to me in response to;
It's seems pretty clear you were indeed referring to a communist society, where work would lose its modern meaning, so to speak. I wasn't implying you were saying we can live without working.


Okay.





"Rather, more to the point would be the *political* argument that the revolution should be defended and advanced with full force -- it would be everyone's political duty to participate in the mass struggle until proletarian independence is achieved. "

Here you weren't referring to a full communist society. This was what I was asking in my last post.


Okay.





Morality is more than just bourgeois or the ruling class' morality, most likely posing absolutely and idealistically as a means to enforce their rule.


Yes, I'll agree that the bourgeois paradigm / propaganda / culture uses abstract, idealist absolutes very often. Intellectually -- especially as these abstract absolutist concepts are conveyed through the corporate mass media in a top-down power structure -- they do *not* aim for a cohesive train of thought, but rather quickly jump from topic to topic like a frog hopping on lily pads.





This is my point, and your criticism that I originally responded to shouldn't be about being moralistic, but being idealistic and absolute.


If you like, but I personally have reservations with anything "moral", as I've explained.





Morality should be subjugated to the class struggle, not based on absolutist thinking(idealistic), and based on current material factors which was the nature of your "political duty".


Okay.

[Dogs On Acid]

REGARDLESS of refusing to work EVERYONE should be entitled to basic needs under a Communist society: Shelter, food & water, healthcare, education, transportation and work.

Luxuries are another story...

We are human beings after all.

[ckaihatsu]

REGARDLESS of refusing to work EVERYONE should be entitled to basic needs under a Communist society: Shelter, food & water, healthcare, education, transportation and work.

Luxuries are another story...

We are human beings after all.


Two thoughts on this....

- Perhaps a fully socialized society would have a perpetual societal interest in *only* "investing" collectivized assets and resources in those (liberated laborers) who will then use them to produce for the explicit mass demands of society. It would make sense that purely individualistic wants -- 'luxuries' -- would then fall solely on the individual for their realization, and the individual would not have much political "clout" by themselves alone by which to make claims for personal use of (large-scale) collectivized assets and resources -- larger social projects would undoubtedly invariably take priority.

- The point of communism *is* for luxury, and *not* work-for-its-own-sake. There's no point in production without consumption, and so if virtually all of (socially necessary) production can be done by machine, that would leave nothing else *but* consumption, or 'luxury', for all.








Now as the State is not to govern, it may be asked what the State is to do. The State is to be a voluntary association that will organise labour, and be the manufacturer and distributor of necessary commodities. The State is to make what is useful. The individual is to make what is beautiful. And as I have mentioned the word labour, I cannot help saying that a great deal of nonsense is being written and talked nowadays about the dignity of manual labour. There is nothing necessarily dignified about manual labour at all, and most of it is absolutely degrading. It is mentally and morally injurious to man to do anything in which he does not find pleasure, and many forms of labour are quite pleasureless activities, and should be regarded as such. To sweep a slushy crossing for eight hours, on a day when the east wind is blowing is a disgusting occupation. To sweep it with mental, moral, or physical dignity seems to me to be impossible. To sweep it with joy would be appalling. Man is made for something better than disturbing dirt. All work of that kind should be done by a machine.

And I have no doubt that it will be so. Up to the present, man has been, to a certain extent, the slave of machinery, and there is something tragic in the fact that as soon as man had invented a machine to do his work he began to starve. This, however, is, of course, the result of our property system and our system of competition. One man owns a machine which does the work of five hundred men. Five hundred men are, in consequence, thrown out of employment, and, having no work to do, become hungry and take to thieving. The one man secures the produce of the machine and keeps it, and has five hundred times as much as he should have, and probably, which is of much more importance, a great deal more than he really wants. Were that machine the property of all, every one would benefit by it. It would be an immense advantage to the community. All unintellectual labour, all monotonous, dull labour, all labour that deals with dreadful things, and involves unpleasant conditions, must be done by machinery. Machinery must work for us in coal mines, and do all sanitary services, and be the stoker of steamers, and clean the streets, and run messages on wet days, and do anything that is tedious or distressing. At present machinery competes against man. Under proper conditions machinery will serve man. There is no doubt at all that this is the future of machinery, and just as trees grow while the country gentleman is asleep, so while Humanity will be amusing itself, or enjoying cultivated leisure—which, and not labour, is the aim of man—or making beautiful things, or reading beautiful things, or simply contemplating the world with admiration and delight, machinery will be doing all the necessary and unpleasant work. The fact is, that civilisation requires slaves. The Greeks were quite right there. Unless there are slaves to do the ugly, horrible, uninteresting work, culture and contemplation become almost impossible. Human slavery is wrong, insecure, and demoralising. On mechanical slavery, on the slavery of the machine, the future of the world depends. And when scientific men are no longer called upon to go down to a depressing East End and distribute bad cocoa and worse blankets to starving people, they will have delightful leisure in which to devise wonderful and marvellous things for their own joy and the joy of everyone else. There will be great storages of force for every city, and for every house if required, and this force man will convert into heat, light, or motion, according to his needs. Is this Utopian? A map of the world that does not include Utopia is not worth even glancing at, for it leaves out the one country at which Humanity is always landing. And when Humanity lands there, it looks out, and, seeing a better country, sets sail. Progress is the realisation of Utopias.

The Soul of Man under Socialism by Oscar Wilde

http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/1017

[Dogs On Acid]

- The point of communism *is* for luxury, and *not* work-for-its-own-sake. There's no point in production without consumption, and so if virtually all of (socially necessary) production can be done by machine, that would leave nothing else *but* consumption, or 'luxury', for all.

Complete mechanization of production? Great! But what about scarcity? Those who work should have a priority to scarce goods, should they not?

[ckaihatsu]

Complete mechanization of production? Great! But what about scarcity? Those who work should have a priority to scarce goods, should they not?


Two points on this topic as well....

- If there's enough abundance it wouldn't really matter who sets the machinery in motion -- just as with infinitely-duplicatable digital data, the material cost of production would be so negligible, and the increasing-returns so great, that the benefits *could not* be quibbled over. Contemporary society doesn't have squabbles and altercations over what to watch on TV when everyone can readily have their own flat-screen.

For less-than-abundant resources, here's my favorite treatment:








It's about distribution systems. Communism (socialism with communal distribution) is usually conceived as a gift economy, but I think a democratic-community model of distribution is a much more accurate depiction of what the intent is. Hypothetically you could have various cities democratically deciding to have different distribution models for different product groups. That seems the most workable model to me.

- Market
- Labor vouchers
- Communal-Democratic
- Gift





This is an excellent point, one I'm surprised we haven't seen earlier. You're placing these various, differentiated methods of distribution on a sliding scale according to the relative *abundance* of the component goods and services produced within.

Perhaps, then, one of the major tasks of a mass collectivized political economy administrating all of this would be to simply categorize *all* goods and services according to their abundant availability, on this sliding scale -- I picture it as a circular bulls-eye centralized point of (all) production, radiating its production outward, with gift distribution closest to the center (indicating abundance), then a bulk-pooled communal-democratic method outside of that, followed by a ratio-based labor voucher system outside of that, with a market-type system (of floating exchange rates) on the outlying peripheral area for least-common and more-specialized items.





Complete mechanization of production? Great! But what about scarcity? Those who work should have a priority to scarce goods, should they not?


- I developed my own post-capitalist, communist-type approach for this issue of work-inputs-to-material-rewards. It does *not* allow for the linkage / conversion of work input to material compensation, as we're used to seeing under the current capitalist "exchange" wage-labor system. This is because such a linkage / exchange would actually not be 'communistic', if one reflects on it for a moment.

So here are pertinent excerpts from the model -- it's at my blog entry, and is attached below.





communist supply & demand -- Model of Material Factors

This is an 8-1/2" x 40" wide table that describes a communist-type political / economic model using three rows and six descriptive columns. The three rows are surplus-value-to-overhead, no surplus, and surplus-value-to-pleasure. The six columns are ownership / control, associated material values, determination of material values, material function, infrastructure / overhead, and propagation.

http://postimage.org/image/35sw8csv8/




Determination of material values

labor [supply] -- Labor credits are paid per hour of work at a multiplier rate based on difficulty or hazard -- multipliers are survey-derived




Propagation

labor [supply] -- Workers with past accumulated labor credits are the funders of new work positions and incoming laborers -- labor credits are handed over at the completion of work hours -- underfunded projects and production runs are debt-based and will be noted as such against the issuing locality


Also:







Ownership / control

communist administration -- All assets and resources will be collectivized as communist property in common -- their use must be determined through a regular political process of prioritized demands from a locality or larger population -- any unused assets or resources may be used by individuals in a personal capacity only

labor [supply] -- Only active workers may control communist property -- no private accumulations are allowed and any proceeds from work that cannot be used or consumed by persons themselves will revert to collectivized communist property

consumption [demand] -- Individuals may possess and consume as much material as they want, with the proviso that the material is being actively used in a personal capacity only -- after a certain period of disuse all personal possessions not in active use will revert to collectivized communist property


communist supply & demand -- Model of Material Factors

http://postimage.org/image/35sw8csv8/

[Oswy]

I've noticed a lot of people on the left criticize the capitalist "Work or starve" idea. Thing is, in our new revolutionary society, I think someone who refuses to work should not receive the benefits of our society. Now I know that sometimes when people say Work or Starve they are referring to children or elderly people, but I am talking about able bodied, young/middle aged people, as this is the majority of the working class today. If someone does not wish to contribute to the products and well being of society, then I don't see why we should open up our hospitals, collective farms, and other things since they're not helping out. Any explanation on this?

Under a socialist system there is much less in the way of legitimate reason for someone to refuse to labour in contribution to society so I don't know that the sentiment is usefully placed. Otherwise we should look at the reasons why someone is so demotivated - useful labour is a human instinct. Nobody should be left to starve, however, but rather encouraged to change their behaviour.

EDIT: as others have pointed out, technological advance and equitable distribution might easily mean our individual need to labour is much reduced anyway.

[Katusha]

Yeah. I'm going to say that work or starve is a right-wing idea. And that as a leftist, I oppose it in all forms. In a true communist society, assuming there is sufficient technological progress, which there has been right now, there will be sufficient food for all. Regardless of if everyone works. And if no one works, then I guess I don't care if communism collapses, because it would have been a failure. (In the far future, there will be no need for anyone to work. Let machines do the work.) So, fuck you right-wing scum who aren't communists but go around calling yourselves communists.

If you give the people too much privilege to decide whether or not they want to work; most will choose not to because that's just the way the human mind works. And thus, there will be a class seen as better (i.e. The non-workers) and this goes against basic Communist believe of social equality. Why should most people work labor for the good of the whole while a few in the populace do nothing and contribute absolutely nothing to society while leeching off the rest?

If robots, like you said, do take control of modern society how will we achieve economic gains in anything? As a whole, technological advancement has only made the progressiveness of society, capitalist or not, slow down.

[The Old Man from Scene 24]

I made a document a few pages long a while back. Here is a part of it that explains my views on the work or starve issue... I blanked out some nouns that would confuse people if they didn't read the whole thing.

UNIVERSAL PAYMENT

ALL CITIZENS OF THE ____ RECEIVE PAYMENT THROUGH THE __________ _______ _______ BANK.

THERE ARE THREE OFFICIAL CATEGORIES OF PAYMENT TYPE: WORKING, DISABLED, AND ANTI-WORKING. THE FOLLOWING CHART OUTLAYS AND COMPARES THEIR ACCESSES:

CARE PACKAGE -------------- | WRK | DIS | A-W |
HOUSING------------------*----*----*
FOOD---------------------*----*----*
HEALTHCARE--------------*----*----*
EDUCATION---------------*----*----*
LIVING-ACCESSORIES------*----*
FREE INTERNET------------*----*
VISITING ABROAD RIGHT----*----*



** WHILE STILL FREE, QUALITY OF HOUSING IS MUCH LOWER FOR ANTI-WORKERS.

DEFINITIONS OF THE THREE CATEGORIES OF UNIVERSAL PAYMENT

THE FOLLOWING OFFICIALLY DEFINES WHAT TYPE OF CATEGORY A CITIZEN OF THE ____ BELONGS TO:

WORKING (MUST IDENTIFY WITH ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING):


IS AN EMPLOYEE OF A SYSTEM.
IS A STUDENT.
IS NOT AN EMPLOYEE OF A SYSTEM, BUT IS SELF-SUSTAINING, MEANING THAT THEY TAKE CARE OF THEMSELVES BY PRODUCING THEIR OWN RESOURCES, WITHOUT THE HELP OF OTHERS.
IS WAITING FOR THEIR FIRST DAY OF EMPLOYMENT AT A JOB THEY HAVE ALREADY SIGNED UP FOR.
HAS BEEN AN ADULT FOR LESS THAN 1 YEAR.
IS UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE.
HAS BEEN UNEMPLOYED FOR LESS THAN 10 MONTHS SINCE THEIR LAST JOB.
IS AWAITING REPLY FROM A JOB APPLICATION.

DEFINITIONS OF CATEGORIES:

DISABLED (MUST IDENTIFY WITH ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING):


IS PERMANENTLY TOO SICK TO WORK.
WILL BE TOO SICK TO WORK FOR MORE THAN 10 MONTHS, BUT NOT PERMANENTLY.
HAS CURRENTLY BEEN TOO SICK TO WORK FOR 10 MONTHS IN A ROW.
HAS A SERIOUS MENTAL DISABILITY THAT MAKES THEM INCAPABLE OF WORKING.
IS AT 65 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER, AND HAS CHOSEN TO RETIRE.



ANTI-WORKING (MUST IDENTIFY WITH ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING):


IS CAPABLE OF WORKING, BUT REFUSES TO.
IS CURRENTLY IN PRISON.
IS CURRENTLY ON PAROLE.

[Klaatu]

A large part of the unemployment problem are the barriers put up by self-righteous conservatives:
"You can't work here if you're gay, drug-addicted, exconvict, too old, too fat, the wrong race/religion/ideology, etc" __________ (fill in the blank)

And then they go on to criticize the unemployed and others for being lazy, etc. :confused:

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

I made a document a few pages long a while back. Here is a part of it that explains my views on the work or starve issue... I blanked out some nouns that would confuse people if they didn't read the whole thing.

UNIVERSAL PAYMENT

ALL CITIZENS OF THE ____ RECEIVE PAYMENT THROUGH THE __________ _______ _______ BANK.

THERE ARE THREE OFFICIAL CATEGORIES OF PAYMENT TYPE: WORKING, DISABLED, AND ANTI-WORKING. THE FOLLOWING CHART OUTLAYS AND COMPARES THEIR ACCESSES:

CARE PACKAGE -------------- | WRK | DIS | A-W |
HOUSING------------------*----*----*
FOOD---------------------*----*----*
HEALTHCARE--------------*----*----*
EDUCATION---------------*----*----*
LIVING-ACCESSORIES------*----*
FREE INTERNET------------*----*
VISITING ABROAD RIGHT----*----*



** WHILE STILL FREE, QUALITY OF HOUSING IS MUCH LOWER FOR ANTI-WORKERS.

DEFINITIONS OF THE THREE CATEGORIES OF UNIVERSAL PAYMENT

THE FOLLOWING OFFICIALLY DEFINES WHAT TYPE OF CATEGORY A CITIZEN OF THE ____ BELONGS TO:

WORKING (MUST IDENTIFY WITH ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING):


IS AN EMPLOYEE OF A SYSTEM.
IS A STUDENT.
IS NOT AN EMPLOYEE OF A SYSTEM, BUT IS SELF-SUSTAINING, MEANING THAT THEY TAKE CARE OF THEMSELVES BY PRODUCING THEIR OWN RESOURCES, WITHOUT THE HELP OF OTHERS.
IS WAITING FOR THEIR FIRST DAY OF EMPLOYMENT AT A JOB THEY HAVE ALREADY SIGNED UP FOR.
HAS BEEN AN ADULT FOR LESS THAN 1 YEAR.
IS UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE.
HAS BEEN UNEMPLOYED FOR LESS THAN 10 MONTHS SINCE THEIR LAST JOB.
IS AWAITING REPLY FROM A JOB APPLICATION.

DEFINITIONS OF CATEGORIES:

DISABLED (MUST IDENTIFY WITH ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING):


IS PERMANENTLY TOO SICK TO WORK.
WILL BE TOO SICK TO WORK FOR MORE THAN 10 MONTHS, BUT NOT PERMANENTLY.
HAS CURRENTLY BEEN TOO SICK TO WORK FOR 10 MONTHS IN A ROW.
HAS A SERIOUS MENTAL DISABILITY THAT MAKES THEM INCAPABLE OF WORKING.
IS AT 65 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER, AND HAS CHOSEN TO RETIRE.



ANTI-WORKING (MUST IDENTIFY WITH ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING):


IS CAPABLE OF WORKING, BUT REFUSES TO.
IS CURRENTLY IN PRISON.
IS CURRENTLY ON PAROLE.




Ah, that has to be the dumbest thing in this thread so far... amongst them, anyway. Why aren't you a capitalist? There's no difference form what you purpose.

You even have a 65 year retirement age. What the fuck.

[RevSpetsnaz]

Funny thing is i voiced the same belief as the thread starter and it was one of the things that got me banned.