"Nobody refuses work"

[ed miliband]

This is kind of a split from that thread on 'Learning' about forcing people to work or whatever. I was going to make a post about leftist approaches to unemployment before but couldn't be bothered, so hopefully this'll be okay.

I guess I'll start with what I meant when I said "you should see some members of my family..." or whatever the exact quote is. My dad comes from quite a large family, having eight siblings. One of his sisters is voluntarily unemployed and he had two brothers, both of whom are now dead, who never worked. They scraped by on benefits, spent most of their time in the pub, and refused any work that was offered to him. It was probably a miserable existence, but I can't blame them - they had no skills, very few opportunities, and any work that was available was low-paying and dull as fuck.

It seems for some on the left people like that are sort of a dirty secret, either to be ignored or to be condemned. I think there are a number of reasons for this:

1. For Leninists and left-wing social democrat types campaigning against unemployment seems to be of pivotal importance (see: SWP and the 'Right to Work' stuff, the Socialist Party's 'Youth Fight for Jobs', etc.). Those who actively resist work don't fit into this...

2. For various anarcho-types it's difficult to accommodate some of the crap in stuff like 'The Conquest of Bread' with the idea that people won't be forced to to do stuff they don't want to in a future anarchist, so in reality everyone wants to work, they just don't have the opportunity to do so.

3. There's a workerist logic that says because capitalists "don't work", those poor people who can work but refuse to do so are in effect like mini-capitalists, or something equally silly.

For me the problem with all the above is that it suggests that ultimately workers should accept the nature of work in capitalist society. I mean, who can groups who actively campaign for "more jobs" reconcile that with truly revolutionary aims?

I don't mean to belittle unemployment, and I know most unemployed people would rather not be unemployed. But for me the point is that people don't dislike unemployment because they like work, but because capitalism requires us to either sell our labour - when work is available - or struggle by on welfare - if that is even possible.

Aight, I'm gonna claim the Chavez defence and say I'm just thinking aloud, but I think there's some points in there for people to address so I'm gonna stop now...

[The Douche]

Fuck work.

http://www.zpub.com/notes/black-work.html


I am not playing definitional games with anybody. When I say I want to abolish work, I mean just what I say, but I want to say what I mean by defining my terms in non-idiosyncratic ways. My minimum definition of work is forced labor, that is, compulsory production. Both elements are essential. Work is production enforced by economic or political means, by the carrot or the stick. (The carrot is just the stick by other means.) But not all creation is work. Work is never done for its own sake, it's done on account of some product or output that the worker (or, more often, somebody else) gets out of it. This is what work necessarily is. To define it is to despise it. But work is usually even worse than its definition decrees. The dynamic of domination intrinsic to work tends over time toward elaboration. In advanced work-riddled societies, including all industrial societies whether capitalist of "Communist," work invariably acquires other attributes which accentuate its obnoxiousness.

[danyboy27]

I have been recently conducting an experiment, i am asking to anyone i know what they would do of their free time if they had nothing to worry about, no food shortage, a roof etc etc.

My landlord would build and repair houses instead of being a salesman, one of my co-worker would teach to people how to take care of dogs, another of my co-worker would like to cook, another i know would really like to teach people how to do exercise.

In my inner circle, one of my sister would like to grow food inside a greenhouse, the other would like to write books and i would like to learn about laws and psychology to help other peoples.

There are some people who answered me they would just ''do nothing'' but i am pretty sure after a couple of beer they would probably tell me exactly what they would like to do. Some people just burry their hopes for a better future so deep inside their being only relaxing substances can make them speak out.

Human being are not vegetables, they need to do something productive to realize themselves, i have yet to witness a civilisation that collapsed on itself beccause the people ''went idle''.

[ed miliband]

I have been recently conducting an experiment, i am asking to anyone i know what they would do of their free time if they had nothing to worry about, no food shortage, a roof etc etc.

My landlord would build and repair houses instead of being a salesman, one of my co-worker would teach to people how to take care of dogs, another of my co-worker would like to cook, another i know would really like to teach people how to do exercise.

In my inner circle, one of my sister would like to grow food inside a greenhouse, the other would like to write books and i would like to learn about laws and psychology to help other peoples.

There are some people who answered me they would just ''do nothing'' but i am pretty sure after a couple of beer they would probably tell me exactly what they would like to do. Some people just burry their hopes for a better future so deep inside their being only relaxing substances can make them speak out.

Human being are not vegetables, they need to do something productive to realize themselves, i have yet to witness a civilisation that collapsed on itself beccause the people ''went idle''.

I can honestly say there's not one thing I'd like to do indefinitely. I don't need beer to lighten me up because I'm drinking right now, brah.

[danyboy27]

I can honestly say there's not one thing I'd like to do indefinitely. I don't need beer to lighten me up because I'm drinking right now, brah.

but you would do something productive, even tho you wouldnt do always the same thing, amirite?

[ed miliband]

dunno, i'm "lost" atm. that's another story tho.

[danyboy27]

dunno, i'm "lost" atm. that's another story tho.


Its hard to find a way when you must constantly think about making money to stay alive.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Radicals also fight for relief for the unemployed.

But I think there are two parts to your question: a practical right now question about work under capitalism and a second part about doing work in general.

1) I don't think the idea that people don't want to work is "a dirty secret" - it's naural under capitalism and it's dealt with in the ideas of alienation. People hate work and putting a wage on it further means that any "extra" work that you don't get paid or some other satisfaction from is avoided like the plague. Still, under capitalism tons of people do lots of "work" into their hobbies. If they own a house many people put tons of work into that - if they own a car they love tons of people spend hours and hours cleaning and fixing their car. But if they did that for other people's car for minimum wage, they'd hate it and slash the cars tires eventually.

Under capitalism I agree with cmoney: fuck work.

After capitalism however I think people will work hard to eliminate "work" as we know it. People will want to do things because they do get a benefit from it - either their own enjoyment or because they know that they need the results of it. Rather than wages or profit the incentive will be wants and interests and part of that will be making necessary but unfifilling tasks and pleasant and unobtrusive as possible.

So why have "full employment demands" - well I think it's just the flip side of the coin for fighting for relif for the unemployed. Capitalism wants a surplus labor force generally and so at best is disinterested in weather people are employed or not. If they didn't have enough workers, then the economy would be crippled, if they had full employment it gives workers too much power to dictate terms of employment. So really for small radical groups today, demanding full employment or relief for the unemployed is really an attempt to help the working class be on stronger footing. With no welfare and with high unemployment, workers are insecure and willing to take cuts just to keep a job.

[Ostrinski]

Come the revolution, I feel like those that mooch off welfare programs should be excluded from class power. They are not proletarians because they are not employed on the means of production, and therefore are not a part of the most productive class of society (the proletariat).

[ed miliband]

Come the revolution, I feel like those that mooch off welfare programs should be excluded from class power. They are not proletarians because they are not employed on the means of production, and therefore are not a part of the most productive class of society (the proletariat).

Are you a student?

I'm a student. I usually wake up at 1 in the afternoon, drink a lot, smoke a bit, occasionally go to lectures and go back to bed.

Those who "mooch off welfare programs" are much more productive than me and most other students I know.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Come the revolution, I feel like those that mooch off welfare programs should be excluded from class power. They are not proletarians because they are not employed on the means of production, and therefore are not a part of the most productive class of society (the proletariat).I think the problem with not working post-capitalism would be that you'd be isolating yourself and removing yourself from having a say in how things are done. If you lived in a community, then in order to use some of their services or have a say in communal planning, you'd probably have to be taking part in some of the routine tasks that need to be done to keep the community going.

With surplus and less work hours needed, no one would care about who specifically is being productive at doing what. If some shortage or special need came up, people could probably be recruited or given some intensive from the community to do that.

People more or less lived like that for most of human history. The only incentive to take part in communal activities was having a part in what goes on and the only "punishment" for not doing this was shame, teasing, and social pressure.

[danyboy27]

Come the revolution, I feel like those that mooch off welfare programs should be excluded from class power. They are not proletarians because they are not employed on the means of production, and therefore are not a part of the most productive class of society (the proletariat).

Hey i got an idea, why not kill them, or ask them to wear visible armband to identify them, even better, forced labor!.


Its not beccause someone is unemployed that he dosnt actively paticipate in some form of productive labor.

Many poor people on welfare spend an insane amount of time to make it trought the month.
Dumpster diving, scarvanging, recycling various materials, fixing their stuff or friend stuff, doing unreported menial job to make it trought the month.
Also some people put themselves on welfare while their girlfriend/boyfriend work to raise the kid.

I fucking hope for you to never be hungry and in a desesperate situation, you fuck.

[Small Geezer]

Come the revolution, I feel like those that mooch off welfare programs should be excluded from class power. They are not proletarians because they are not employed on the means of production, and therefore are not a part of the most productive class of society (the proletariat).

Surely you will be resricted soon unless you sort that kind of comment out.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Come the revolution, I feel like those that mooch off welfare programs should be excluded from class power. They are not proletarians because they are not employed on the means of production, and therefore are not a part of the most productive class of society (the proletariat).

Come the revolution I think those that advocate work-or-starve policies and fetishise labouring should be excluded from class power for being reactionary scum that instead of seeking to abolish the labour of the proletariat want to permeate and perpetuate it.

If the capitalist state offers you a chance to escape arduous labour and problems, and this is not a problem for you - i.e. you would not find it too meaningless - then take whatever the capitalist state gives you. The working class is not the working class because it loves to work, and we must not fetishise work in and of itself, for this is against the very purpose of any sensible and worthwhile socialist revolution. We do not want to perpetuate the working class - we want to abolish class and make a class less society.

[Tovarisch]

But the society needs workers. We need bricklayers to build buildings for people to live in, we need garbagemen to keep us from swimming in garbage, we need firefighters to put out fires, and we need scientists to make technological advancements. I agree, doing nothing is nice, but that is not an option, because if everybody did nothing, where would food come from?

If there is one job that needs to be eliminated, it is a merchant, because it's a very useless job that contributes nothing towards society

[hatzel]

People more or less lived like that for most of human history. The only incentive to take part in communal activities was having a part in what goes on and the only "punishment" for not doing this was shame, teasing, and social pressure.

True enough. The question, however, is whether or not we ought to perpetuate this practice, rather than allowing the individual to make lifestyle choices without the threat of being publicly shamed. Even if we did, I feel these numerous shunned individuals would most likely unite with their peers in a form more agreeable to them - together they would surely find a way to get by (a task easier for them, I may assume, than for those who seek a life 'outside the system' today), and their mutual companionship would have a marked impact on the effectiveness of this social pressure; why should anybody care what a certain social circle thinks of them when they are in a wholly different social circle? And why should anybody's exclusion from a given group's decision-making process affect them, when they are still welcome to contribute to analogous discussions with the acquaintances they associate with - is this not as legitimate a body as any other?

[danyboy27]

But the society needs workers. We need bricklayers to build buildings for people to live in, we need garbagemen to keep us from swimming in garbage, we need firefighters to put out fires, and we need scientists to make technological advancements. I agree, doing nothing is nice, but that is not an option, because if everybody did nothing, where would food come from?

what make you think those professions would disapear if we would permit some people of doing ''nothing''. In many european countries the welfare system is really generous and yet, i never heard of firefighter or gardbadge collector leaving all behind for a welfare check.

When a task become necessary for society to survive, human get their shit together and do something about it,people volunteer to help, and its certainly not the 1 or 2 idle folks here and there that will change this millenia old instinct to help their fellow human being.



If there is one job that needs to be eliminated, it is a merchant, because it's a very useless job that contributes nothing towards society
Except you cant really stop people from doing barter or exchange, it will always be there and its hardly a threat to communism.

if by merchant you mean the one working in stores, i am sorry to disapoint you but they too will still exist. What is a store? a distribution center of various products. what is a salesman? a guy conselling you on what to buy according to the incentives society and the store give him.
From my experience, most salesman are unhappy people who would be willing to do something else, but there are some who really enjoy helping people to choose a computer or a car, the only problem right now is the profit motive, without it they would probably help people choosing more wisely.

[Commissar Rykov]

Come the revolution, I feel like those that mooch off welfare programs should be excluded from class power. They are not proletarians because they are not employed on the means of production, and therefore are not a part of the most productive class of society (the proletariat).

How the fuck are you not restricted yet? All your constant kneejerk reactionary posts and yet still free to roam around. Guess if you were a fash or involved with forum games you would have been GULAG'd already. I honestly hate people like you with a passion mostly because you show your Petty-Bourgeois background and notions by posting that kind of fucking shit.

[Martin Blank]

Come the revolution, I feel like those that mooch off welfare programs should be excluded from class power. They are not proletarians because they are not employed on the means of production, and therefore are not a part of the most productive class of society (the proletariat).

First, define "welfare programs". If you're talking about things like the federal, state or emergency cash assistance, WIC, rent and utilities assistance, food stamps, unemployment, Medicaid, SSI, Social Security, or Medicare, most of those receiving these benefits (excluding Medicaid, SSI, Social Security and Medicare) are on them for less than six months, and most of the recipients are expected to participate in workfare (forced labor) programs. Those who are on these programs for a long term (or the rest of their lives), are there either because of the current economic depression or because they are retired and/or disabled.

Second, the overwhelming majority of those who receive these benefits are part of the working class. They are drawn from the working poor, and, increasingly, the middle and upper layers of the working class devastated by the depression. Moreover, the largest groups of people who receive these benefits, the retired and disabled, have earned the right to access these programs. Most retirees worked for decades valorizing capital through production or service, generating more revenue for the ruling classes than they will ever get back; most disabled people sacrificed their physical health and well-being for the sake of capitalism's maximizing of profits.

Third, if we view exploitation as a societal phenomenon, then no working person is "mooching". The money received from social welfare programs was originally taken through taxation, which is extracted by the government from workers' paychecks. Such taxation is an added layer of extraction of surplus value, claimed by the bourgeois government for its own purposes, and only a fraction of that extraction ever makes it back into the hands of workers through social welfare programs.

Fourth, to say that these people "are not proletarians because they are not employed on the means of production" is a narrow and vulgar ahistorical view of the working class. Class is a series of social relations -- their relations to the mode of production and with other classes. This is not based on conjunctural conditions, but rather it is based on the overarching social situation. That is, class cannot be properly understood or analyzed by looking at a snapshot of society, but rather as an historic dynamic that encompasses the development that precedes the momentary glimpse.

[Crux]

Come the revolution, I feel like those that mooch off welfare programs should be excluded from class power. They are not proletarians because they are not employed on the means of production, and therefore are not a part of the most productive class of society (the proletariat).
Capitalism maintains an army of unemployed. Fuck welfare, we say reparations. You think living on welfare is good times? Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.

[Ostrinski]

First, define "welfare programs". If you're talking about things like the federal, state or emergency cash assistance, WIC, rent and utilities assistance, food stamps, unemployment, Medicaid, SSI, Social Security, or Medicare, most of those receiving these benefits (excluding Medicaid, SSI, Social Security and Medicare) are on them for less than six months, and most of the recipients are expected to participate in workfare (forced labor) programs. Those who are on these programs for a long term (or the rest of their lives), are there either because of the current economic depression or because they are retired and/or disabled.

Second, the overwhelming majority of those who receive these benefits are part of the working class. They are drawn from the working poor, and, increasingly, the middle and upper layers of the working class devastated by the depression. Moreover, the largest groups of people who receive these benefits, the retired and disabled, have earned the right to access these programs. Most retirees worked for decades valorizing capital through production or service, generating more revenue for the ruling classes than they will ever get back; most disabled people sacrificed their physical health and well-being for the sake of capitalism's maximizing of profits.

Third, if we view exploitation as a societal phenomenon, then no working person is "mooching". The money received from social welfare programs was originally taken through taxation, which is extracted by the government from workers' paychecks. Such taxation is an added layer of extraction of surplus value, claimed by the bourgeois government for its own purposes, and only a fraction of that extraction ever makes it back into the hands of workers through social welfare programs.

Fourth, to say that these people "are not proletarians because they are not employed on the means of production" is a narrow and vulgar ahistorical view of the working class. Class is a series of social relations -- their relations to the mode of production and with other classes. This is not based on conjunctural conditions, but rather it is based on the overarching social situation. That is, class cannot be properly understood or analyzed by looking at a snapshot of society, but rather as an historic dynamic that encompasses the development that precedes the momentary glimpse.Ok you're right. It was indeed a knee-jerk comment and I apologize. I've thought about it and I recall the comment I made. It was insensitive and ignorant. Thank you Cthulhu and Jimmie Higgins for being reasonable with me.

[Ostrinski]

How the fuck are you not restricted yet? All your constant kneejerk reactionary posts and yet still free to roam around. Guess if you were a fash or involved with forum games you would have been GULAG'd already. I honestly hate people like you with a passion mostly because you show your Petty-Bourgeois background and notions by posting that kind of fucking shit.How the fuck are you not b-- oh.

[Ostrinski]

Come the revolution I think those that advocate work-or-starve policies and fetishise labouring should be excluded from class power for being reactionary scum that instead of seeking to abolish the labour of the proletariat want to permeate and perpetuate it.

If the capitalist state offers you a chance to escape arduous labour and problems, and this is not a problem for you - i.e. you would not find it too meaningless - then take whatever the capitalist state gives you. The working class is not the working class because it loves to work, and we must not fetishise work in and of itself, for this is against the very purpose of any sensible and worthwhile socialist revolution. We do not want to perpetuate the working class - we want to abolish class and make a class less society.In my defense, I never implied that I would have a stake in class power anyway. I'm a student.

[Ostrinski]

Capitalism maintains an army of unemployed. Fuck welfare, we say reparations. You think living on welfare is good times? Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.I apologize.