From each according to their ability...?

[CommieCoss]

In socialism/communism, how would we deal with lazy people who try to leech off of the system or pretend they can't contribute (like many in the current welfare system)? This is one thing in communism that I've been unable to figure out and it's something my capitalist friends like to throw at me in debates.

P.S. Sorry if there's already a thread on this

[Geiseric]

That's a strawman, things aren't so simple. The only reason we have welfare is to keep consumption up since Capitalism can't possibly employ everybody. In fact its existence relies on the fact that workers have to compete for jobs. With that kind of system it's inevitable that there are some homeless people.

What we need to do is lower working hours and pay the same so people can buy more. Your capitalist friends don't even know how what they support works. That entire arguement is a strawman, and doesn't have anything to do with the real world. If somebody says that, trust me, they don't know fuck about shit. Arguing with them is a waste of time unless you're alone and they're not trying to look smart in front of their equally stupid friends.

[Red Rabbit]

They will only be given enough to survive. If they want a fancy new TV or computer, then they'll have to help contribute.

In any case, the idea is that people are only lazy now because working sucks too much, under Communism it won't.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

lazy people wont leech off the system under communism because there wont be a bourgeoisie

http://instantrimshot.com/

[Dean]

In socialism/communism, how would we deal with lazy people who try to leech off of the system or pretend they can't contribute (like many in the current welfare system)? This is one thing in communism that I've been unable to figure out and it's something my capitalist friends like to throw at me in debates.

P.S. Sorry if there's already a thread on this

If there is an unconsumed abundance, they are welcome to it. Although, I'm not sure why people would be lazy when they have more control over their working conditions, and enjoy more of the fruits of their labor. The application of labor would be more efficient (i.e. no marketing, no bloated corporate bureaucracy) in addition to transferring more of the produced value to the workers.

[Railyon]

Also, the lines of what defines work will be completely blurred and uprooted. If our aim is a post-scarcity society, I am vigorously in favor of "the right to be lazy".

Dean pretty much said it all though.

[Offbeat]

In socialism/communism, how would we deal with lazy people who try to leech off of the system or pretend they can't contribute (like many in the current welfare system)?
This idea of lazy people who leech of the system is a fabrication of the right-wing media. Most people who rely on welfare do so because there aren't enough jobs, only a small minority choose not to work. In a communist society run along the lines of "From each according to his ability, to each according to their needs", this minority would disappear anyway, because work "according to your ability" would be something enjoyable, especially when the workplace is controlled by the workers. And besides, sitting at home "leeching off the system" would soon become boring, meaning everyone would find a way to contribute to society if only to occupy their time.

[[email protected]]

You don't work, you don't eat.

Soviets certainly had that much right.

[Railyon]

In that case I will shovel a pile of dung from A to B once a day and do nothing more just to spite that principle.

We're talking about communism here, right? One could argue there isn't even a material necessity for everyone to work to ensure the fulfillment of everyday needs, rendering that dogma useless; dangerous even.

[danyboy27]

In socialism/communism, how would we deal with lazy people who try to leech off of the system or pretend they can't contribute (like many in the current welfare system)? This is one thing in communism that I've been unable to figure out and it's something my capitalist friends like to throw at me in debates.

P.S. Sorry if there's already a thread on this

Regardless of its contribution to ''society'' every human being should receive enough good and services to stay physically and socially alive,
Failure to do will always cause more harm than good.

Several country with an extensive welfare system (sweden, norway, denmark) provide a good welfare service for already several decades without noticable negative societal change.

Regardless of the economical system, taking care of those who do not ''work'' does not create a nation of ''leachers''.
Of course there will always be some people for various reasons that will either do nothing or cheat the system, but their numbers will always be relatively small and harmless.

[danyboy27]

You don't work, you don't eat.

Soviets certainly had that much right.

Not really but keep living in your little authoritarian dreamland

[CommieCoss]

This idea of lazy people who leech of the system is a fabrication of the right-wing media. Most people who rely on welfare do so because there aren't enough jobs, only a small minority choose not to work. In a communist society run along the lines of "From each according to his ability, to each according to their needs", this minority would disappear anyway, because work "according to your ability" would be something enjoyable, especially when the workplace is controlled by the workers. And besides, sitting at home "leeching off the system" would soon become boring, meaning everyone would find a way to contribute to society if only to occupy their time.

I agree with most of what you're saying, but how could we ensure that jobs become "enjoyable", besides giving workers more power? It seems that in a communist society, some people might just give up on contributing to society, which could become unsustainable if too many people aren't weaned away from this mentality.


You don't work, you don't eat.


Sounds like right-winger shit to me

[ckaihatsu]

I agree with most of what you're saying, but how could we ensure that jobs become "enjoyable", besides giving workers more power? It seems that in a communist society, some people might just give up on contributing to society, which could become unsustainable if too many people aren't weaned away from this mentality.

A large part of 'enjoyable' is realistic worker empowerment, something that capital-based work relations can never offer.

'Enjoyable' is knowing that you and your work are not being dehumanized into a rote machine-like functioning but rather that you are a proportionate part of the whole world's actual direction into the future, both politically and economically.

In such a society people would be *free* to forfeit such historically unprecedented work roles. I deeply sense that such a society would be *so* abundant in productivity that any and all formal remuneration systems for liberated labor would be entirely superfluous.

No ulterior motive for work in such a society would be possible, and people would only be able to provide their best efforts in their justly empowered social roles since there would no longer be the least material compulsion for *having* to labor.

Effectively all liberated labor would be entirely "volunteer" labor. As long as enough people were available to produce a per-item surplus for everyone in the world -- through co-running fully collectivized production -- it wouldn't matter in the least if everyone else worked or not, pragmatically speaking.

[CommieCoss]

A large part of 'enjoyable' is realistic worker empowerment, something that capital-based work relations can never offer.

'Enjoyable' is knowing that you and your work are not being dehumanized into a rote machine-like functioning but rather that you are a proportionate part of the whole world's actual direction into the future, both politically and economically.

In such a society people would be *free* to forfeit such historically unprecedented work roles. I deeply sense that such a society would be *so* abundant in productivity that any and all formal remuneration systems for liberated labor would be entirely superfluous.

No ulterior motive for work in such a society would be possible, and people would only be able to provide their best efforts in their justly empowered social roles since there would no longer be the least material compulsion for *having* to labor.

Effectively all liberated labor would be entirely "volunteer" labor. As long as enough people were available to produce a per-item surplus for everyone in the world -- through co-running fully collectivized production -- it wouldn't matter in the least if everyone else worked or not, pragmatically speaking.

I don't know... it seems kind of unfair and unrealistic to have some people producing for everyone

(by the way, I'm not trying to discredit the underlying theory of "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need" or anything - just playing devil's advocate ;))

[MotherCossack]

in the begining we were not lazy.
i think that jobs and working conditions are constructed to serve the ruling classes, not to serve ourselves.
eventually... it would change. the focus shift back...
we would be tuned into and be a part of the work.
things like pride, honesty, skill, invention, joy, respect, order, would, again, resonate and .... ooh i'm getting all excited ..just thinking about it...

i know there would still be lots of 'lazy' people.... who resist work...
but it would get smaller....
and eventually i am sure most people find something they like to do and can offer... especially if the emphasis remains keeping things as broad brush and flexible with imagination and encouragement.

[chefdave]

In socialism/communism, how would we deal with lazy people who try to leech off of the system or pretend they can't contribute (like many in the current welfare system)? This is one thing in communism that I've been unable to figure out and it's something my capitalist friends like to throw at me in debates.

P.S. Sorry if there's already a thread on this


Communism has no method for tackling the issues your friends highlight because communists are afflicted with tunnel vision and concentrate solely on the bank balances of the rich. Communists/socialists cannot even come to terms with the fact that welfare acts as a drain on national resources so they have little hope of dealing with the Welfare Queens who live the high life at everybody else's expense.

I'm sorry but when the government has to introduce a welfare cap of £26,000 ($42,000) which nets off to more than the average national wage you know something is going terribly wrong with the public's finances.

[Railyon]

Welfare Queens who live the high life at everybody else's expense.

http://game2gether.de/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/060721-queen_elisabeth_IIl.jpg

[chefdave]

http://game2gether.de/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/060721-queen_elisabeth_IIl.jpg


It just proves my point, you're incapable of coming to terms with the economic vampirism that takes place in the name of welfare.

All forms of welfare are economically and socially malignant so why do you condemn welfare for the rich while vehemently supporting welfare for the poor?

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

In socialism/communism, how would we deal with lazy people who try to leech off of the system or pretend they can't contribute (like many in the current welfare system)?
Those who imagine people go on welfare for that reason have never been on welfare.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

All forms of welfare are economically and socially malignant so why do you condemn welfare for the rich while vehemently supporting welfare for the poor?
Abolish capitalism, then we can abolish poverty and welfare.

[chefdave]

Abolish capitalism, then we can abolish poverty and welfare.

By abolishing capital and attacking those who seek to accumulate capital we'd be plunged immediately into the stone-age. Sure the rich would lose, but then so would everybody else to it's a self-defeatist proposition.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

By abolishing capital and attacking those who seek to accumulate capital we'd be plunged immediately into the stone-age. Sure the rich would lose, but hen so would everybody else to it's a self-defeatist proposition.
So if we get rid of the capitalist class, the vast majority of people will then turn their back on technology?

[Offbeat]

I agree with most of what you're saying, but how could we ensure that jobs become "enjoyable", besides giving workers more power? It seems that in a communist society, some people might just give up on contributing to society, which could become unsustainable if too many people aren't weaned away from this mentality.

"From each according to his ability" basically means you do what you're good at, which is something most people find enjoyable. Also most people will be able to choose when and for how long they want to work, so work will no longer be a neccessary but tedious chore.

[chefdave]

So if we get rid of the capitalist class, the vast majority of people will then turn their back on technology?

If we abolish the accumulation and innocent creation of capital the vast majority of the public would have had the matter settled for them. They wouldn't willingly give up access to technology which is why it would have to implemented from above via collective decision making and coercion, or communism as it's otherwise known.

[Offbeat]

If we abolish the accumulation and innocent creation of capital the vast majority of the public would have had the matter settled for them. They wouldn't willingly give up access to technology which is why it would have to implemented from above via collective decision making and coercion, or communism as it's otherwise known.
What? This makes no sense, please show me how technology is reliant on capitalism (if that's your argument).

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

If we abolish the accumulation and innocent creation of capital the vast majority of the public would have had the matter settled for them. They wouldn't willingly give up access to technology which is why it would have to implemented from above via collective decision making and coercion, or communism as it's otherwise known.
Your argument makes no sense. Abolishing capitalism means abolishing technology? Why do you imagine a successful workers' revolution would see an end to technology? Why would the workers abandon it?

[chefdave]

What? This makes no sense, please show me how technology is reliant on capitalism (if that's your argument).

Technology IS capital, so by attacking capitalism you're inadvertantly attacking an inanimate factor of production. What has a spade or a workshop ever done to deserve such criticism?

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Technology IS capital, so by attacking capitalism you're inadvertantly attacking an inanimate factor of production. What has a spade or a workshop ever done to deserve such criticism?
Do you just make this nonsense up as you go?

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

would have to implemented from above via collective decision making and coercion, or communism as it's otherwise known.
Or implemented from below by collective decision making through decentralized councils, which is communism.

[Per Levy]

By abolishing capital and attacking those who seek to accumulate capital we'd be plunged immediately into the stone-age. Sure the rich would lose, but then so would everybody else to it's a self-defeatist proposition.

so before the bourgeoisie and capitalism arose humanity lived in a stone age? also your theory is so bogus that it is more funny then anything.

[The Jay]

Abolishing Capitalism does not mean abolishing capital in that sense, rather it abolishes the unfair accumulation of it. People get what they need, and probably much more if the community decides to produce more than it needs.

[chefdave]

Your argument makes no sense. Abolishing capitalism means abolishing technology? Why do you imagine a successful workers' revolution would see an end to technology? Why would the workers abandon it?

The idea that all wealths flows from the sweat and toil of labour is a bit of a leftist fantasy. It takes 3 factors of production to produce wealth (land, labour, capital) so to put one on a pedestal and pretend that it alone is responsible for all our material comforts shows a complete disregard for objective reality.

[The Jay]

The idea that all wealths flows from the sweat and toil of labour is a bit of a leftist fantasy. It takes 3 factors of production to produce wealth (land, labour, capital) so to put one on a pedestal and pretend that it alone is responsible for all our material comforts shows a complete disregard for objective reality.

Labor is where the SURPLUS value comes from. It's how new capital is generated from a smaller amount.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

The idea that all wealths flows from the sweat and toil of labour is a bit of a leftist fantasy. It takes 3 factors of production to produce wealth (land, labour, capital) so to put one on a pedestal and pretend that it alone is responsible for all our material comforts shows a complete disregard for objective reality.
Land is worthless without labor to use it to create wealth. The creation of wealth predates the existence of capital. The only constant is human labor.

[chefdave]

Do you just make this nonsense up as you go?

No, it happens to be an economic fact. Capital simply means tooling, i.e machines, factories and the like, so if you're raison d'etre is to attack capitalism it's logical to conclude you believe machines and factories are detrimental to the labourer's standard of living.

[chefdave]

Labor is where the SURPLUS value comes from. It's how new capital is generated from a smaller amount.

Nope, nature is where the surplus value comes from. If one field yields twice as much as another with the same application of labour the owner of the more fertile field recieves a bonus his neighbour has been denied. Labour enhances these surplus values but they're rooted firmly in the various geographical gifts nature has to offer.

[Per Levy]

No, it happens to be an economic fact. Capital simply means tooling, i.e machines, factories and the like, so if you're raison d'etre is to attack capitalism it's logical to conclude you believe machines and factories are detrimental to the labourer's standard of living.

oh wow you're funny, we didnt had a funny one like you for while.

i mean seriously, you dont belive this right? you're just trolling, but if you belive this its even more funny^^.

anyway, you do realize that no communist wants to destroy factories or production, commies just want to empower the workers so the workers take over the production. communists actually want to develope the shit out of the world, cause cappies dont care about that they just care about profit and nothing else.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

No, it happens to be an economic fact. Capital simply means tooling, i.e machines, factories and the like, so if you're raison d'etre is to attack capitalism it's logical to conclude you believe machines and factories are detrimental to the labourer's standard of living.
"Further, wealth does not become capital until certain historical conditions pertain: in the first place, the development of forces of production must be such that people can produce more than they need to live, so people have surplus labour left over after they have produced all that they need in order to live; secondly, there must be a class of free labourers who have nothing to sell but their capacity to work and no other means of livelihood, who can be forced to work for the capitalist (the proletariat); thirdly, a class of people who own the means of production as their personal property (the bourgeoisie)." - from the Encyclopedia of Marxism

[The Jay]

No that's just the geographic nature of the area by soil quality. In this case the soil is no different from having superior machinery, ie: more production for less labor. The surplus value comes in when the farmer get's screwed over in his pay (if someone else owns his farm).

[chefdave]

Land is worthless without labor to use it to create wealth. The creation of wealth predates the existence of capital. The only constant is human labor.

There would be no labour if the earth hadn't first provided the necessary condition for human life to exist, nature is truly the source of all wealth and those who are granted direct access to it, i.e landlords, are best placed to grab all society's surplus wealth for private consumption.

[l'Enfermé]

If we abolish the accumulation and innocent creation of capital the vast majority of the public would have had the matter settled for them. They wouldn't willingly give up access to technology which is why it would have to implemented from above via collective decision making and coercion, or communism as it's otherwise known.
Abolishing the monopoly over the means of production of the possessing classes somehow has anything to do with technology?

And the fact that all wealth is either extracted or created by human beings is a fantasy? Where else does it appear from, then? Does wealth magically drop from the sky? Elaborate more on that, please. And the technology thing, also, I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.

[chefdave]

No that's just the geographic nature of the area by soil quality. In this case the soil is no different from having superior machinery, ie: more production for less labor. The surplus value comes in when the farmer get's screwed over in his pay (if someone else owns his farm).

Soil fertility is very different to advanced machinery because it provides the owner with an effortless windfall gain. Labour and money has to be expended by the owner of the less fertile field to generate the same yield as his luckier neighbour, these benefits transform into an economic surplus that in some cases grant the "farmer" an existence free from the tyranny of production.

[the zizekian]

In socialism/communism, how would we deal with lazy people who try to leech off of the system or pretend they can't contribute (like many in the current welfare system)? This is one thing in communism that I've been unable to figure out and it's something my capitalist friends like to throw at me in debates.

P.S. Sorry if there's already a thread on this

Against such claim, I have had great success in past debates just by saying that laziness is simply too boring to be a problem.

[chefdave]

Abolishing the monopoly over the means of production of the possessing classes somehow has anything to do with technology?

And the fact that all wealth is either extracted or created by human beings is a fantasy? Where else does it appear from, then? Does wealth magically drop from the sky? Elaborate more on that, please. And the technology thing, also, I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.

Well in a way yes. Where do you think the materials came from to produce the computer you're using right now? The earth/mother nature/God etc etc, we humans fashioned these gifts into products that are more useful but essentially we're just rearranging wealth that has indeed "dropped from the sky". Abolishing capital/technology or attacking capital for easing the wealth creation process makes absolutely no sense to me. I don't know why anyone would support such folly.

[ВАЛТЕР]

Well in a way yes. Where do you think the materials came from to produce the computer you're using right now? The earth/mother nature/God etc etc, we humans fashioned these gifts into products that are more useful but essentially we're just rearranging wealth that has indeed "dropped from the sky". Abolishing capital/technology or attacking capital for easing the wealth creation process makes absolutely no sense to me. I don't know why anyone would support such folly.

Rearranging the wealth in a way that centralizes and goes directly into the hands of the people who do not labour to create it. The "rearranging" of wealth under capitalism leaves the majority with nothing while the few have everything.

Another thing, why does nature give the landlords/factory owners, etc. the rights to the land and surplus? Why them specifically? This is done by force, not "nature".

Since they aren't the ones working for it. If nature gives these things to us, then we should all have control over how they are distributed and organized since it is natures gift to us, not to you, me , him, her, or anyone else but it is a gift of nature to us as a whole.

[the zizekian]

Well in a way yes. Where do you think the materials came from to produce the computer you're using right now? The earth/mother nature/God etc etc, we humans fashioned these gifts into products that are more useful but essentially we're just rearranging wealth that has indeed "dropped from the sky". Abolishing capital/technology or attacking capital for easing the wealth creation process makes absolutely no sense to me. I don't know why anyone would support such folly.

The problem is that capital produces value for the sake of value.

[ParaRevolutionary]

You dont work, you dont eat.

[the zizekian]

You dont work, you dont eat.

The problem today is that capitalists or the lazy pretend to work.

[chefdave]

Rearranging the wealth in a way that centralizes and goes directly into the hands of the people who do not labour to create it. The "rearranging" of wealth under capitalism leaves the majority with nothing while the few have everything.

Another thing, why does nature give the landlords/factory owners, etc. the rights to the land and surplus? Why them specifically? This is done by force, not "nature".

Since they aren't the ones working for it. If nature gives these things to us, then we should all have control over how they are distributed and organized since it is natures gift to us, not to you, me , him, her, or anyone else but it is a gift of nature to us as a whole.

The problem, as I see it, is that we've allowed a handful of opportunists to monopolise the earth's natural value thus giving them the eternal upper hand when it comes to dishing out the wealth of the nation. Both labour and capital can do nothing without first gaining permission from the landlord, and as a member of a lucrative cartel landowners exploit this power to full economic effect. I'd deal with it properly by sticking them with a land value tax, this would ameliorate the worst excesses of capitalism while leaving ordinary labourers free to accumulate as much genuine capital as they can get their hands on. Land isn't capital.

[chefdave]

The problem is that capital produces value for the sake of value.

I would like everyone to one day be in a position to produce value for the sake of value. The alternative is to have some people producing value because it keeps them from starving on the streets, which is not a great place to be.

[ParaRevolutionary]

The problem today is that capitalists or the lazy pretend to work.

As far as capitalists go i dont think they even pretend anymore.

[roy]

The problem, as I see it, is that we've allowed a handful of opportunists to monopolise the earth's natural value thus giving them the eternal upper hand when it comes to dishing out the wealth of the nation. Both labour and capital can do nothing without first gaining permission from the landlord, and as a member of a lucrative cartel landowners exploit this power to full economic effect. I'd deal with it properly by sticking them with a land value tax, this would ameliorate the worst excesses of capitalism while leaving ordinary labourers free to accumulate as much genuine capital as they can get their hands on. Land isn't capital.

Oh, really? We'd deal with it by abolishing private property. The problem isn't a handful of opportunists, or the corporations, or the government: the problem is capitalism. The entire world's current predicament is simply the reality of capitalism. Even if it weren't, how would you go about creating a libertarian utopia?

[the zizekian]

As far as capitalists go i dont think they even pretend anymore.

I think that the only activity that is saving capitalism is the charitable work that the rich are pretending to do.

[ВАЛТЕР]

The problem, as I see it, is that we've allowed a handful of opportunists to monopolise the earth's natural value thus giving them the eternal upper hand when it comes to dishing out the wealth of the nation. Both labour and capital can do nothing without first gaining permission from the landlord, and as a member of a lucrative cartel landowners exploit this power to full economic effect. I'd deal with it properly by sticking them with a land value tax, this would ameliorate the worst excesses of capitalism while leaving ordinary labourers free to accumulate as much genuine capital as they can get their hands on. Land isn't capital.


No matter what you do, this will always happen. Whether it takes 5 years, or 100 years, capital will always centralize into fewer and fewer hands and as a result so will power. History has proven this to be true. Capitalists are like diseases, they spread and a spread infecting every living thing.

Capitalism's sole goal is profit. Capitalism's goal isn't prosperity, equality, peace, it is profit. That is it. Nothing more nothing less than profit.

[the zizekian]

I would like everyone to one day be in a position to produce value for the sake of value. The alternative is to have some people producing value because it keeps them from starving on the streets, which is not a great place to be.

There is no point in producing something only to sell it, for the sole purpose of accumulating money (capital), and never using anything.

[chefdave]

Oh, really? We'd deal with it by abolishing private property. The problem isn't a handful of opportunists, or the corporations, or the government: the problem is capitalism. The entire world's current predicament is simply the reality of capitalism. Even if it weren't, how would you go about creating a libertarian utopia?

Capitalism is flawed because it allows property in land to masquerade as private property, without this dire oversight the capitalist paradigm would work as a method to create and distribute wealth fairly. The basic problem is that right-winger and left-wingers alike cannot tell the difference between legitimate property (of which labour is a part) and arbitrary state-based transfers of wealth to the haves from the have nots.

[chefdave]

No matter what you do, this will always happen. Whether it takes 5 years, or 100 years, capital will always centralize into fewer and fewer hands and as a result so will power. History has proven this to be true. Capitalists are like diseases, they spread and a spread infecting every living thing.

Capitalism's sole goal is profit. Capitalism's goal isn't prosperity, equality, peace, it is profit. That is it. Nothing more nothing less than profit.

On the contrary the profit motive is the very mechanism that allows us to serve our fellow man, where there's room for excess profit (i.e a commodity in demand) producers are more likely to fill the void thus creating abundance where there was once scarcity. Yes profit seeking is essentially an activity based upon private greed, but if this desire is harnessed so that the greedy can only satisy their greed by providing others with what they want the net effect is beneficial to society as a whole. Businesses aren't charities. But as they're also a million times more productive than charities I don't see why this is a bad thing.

[ParaRevolutionary]

I think that the only activity that is saving capitalism is the charitable work that the rich are pretending to do.

I think some of the rich actually do want to do good by donating.

[Anderson]

Even if we need to count in numbers there are much more lazy people in the rich class who enjoy wealth by owning businesses or means of production

[ParaRevolutionary]

Even if we need to count in numbers there are much more lazy people in the rich class who enjoy wealth by owning businesses or means of production

How do you figure that?

[the zizekian]

I think some of the rich actually do want to do good by donating.

They are rich because they have a distorted conception of what is good.

[the zizekian]

In socialism/communism, how would we deal with lazy people who try to leech off of the system or pretend they can't contribute (like many in the current welfare system)? This is one thing in communism that I've been unable to figure out and it's something my capitalist friends like to throw at me in debates.

P.S. Sorry if there's already a thread on this

Contributing to what? From inside the capitalist perspective, the only credible answer is: contributing to the destruction of the planet!

[ParaRevolutionary]

They are rich because they have a distorted conception of what is good.

That has nothing to do with my previous post.

[the zizekian]

In socialism/communism, how would we deal with lazy people who try to leech off of the system or pretend they can't contribute (like many in the current welfare system)? This is one thing in communism that I've been unable to figure out and it's something my capitalist friends like to throw at me in debates.

P.S. Sorry if there's already a thread on this

One has to be envious to see laziness as a problem.

[ParaRevolutionary]

One has to be envious to see laziness as a problem.

It is a problem nonetheless.

[the zizekian]

One has to be envious to see laziness as a problem.


It is a problem nonetheless.

Laziness is rather the solution because a lazy person wants to be efficient.

[ckaihatsu]

I don't know... it seems kind of unfair and unrealistic to have some people producing for everyone


Sure -- well, that "some people" doesn't have to be the *exact same* group of people for their entire lives -- I think we all know that we all have a number of varied interests through the course of our lives, and no one would expect people to turn themselves into *living institutions* under a post-capitalist (communist) system.

If there was a distinct *lack* of liberated labor for some tasks that couldn't be readily transcended then it would be a political issue and maybe everyone would take a turn in putting in the required labor, or some other method, etc.

(This also points, tangentially, to showing that a post-commodity political economy would have a *collective interest* in transcending the more-odious tasks of labor as quickly as possible, as through the improving of technology, so that *no one* has to do them. Contrast this to the *present* system in which labor is a commodity and its concomitant tasks -- no matter how inhumane or distasteful -- will *continue*, since there remains a market for such labor, while developing technology to *overcome* such a need for that labor would be considered more speculative and risky.)





(by the way, I'm not trying to discredit the underlying theory of "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need" or anything - just playing devil's advocate ;))





"From each according to his ability" basically means you do what you're good at, which is something most people find enjoyable. Also most people will be able to choose when and for how long they want to work, so work will no longer be a neccessary but tedious chore.








Very interesting read, if I am following you correctly, the very notion of the "free loader" is an irrelevance and an abstraction because when the proletariat controls the means of production, we will not be producing limited amount of consumer goods to sell on a basis of supply and demand, but simply to cover all the demands of the population?





Yeah, exactly. I'm tempted to call myself a POST-communist because the orthodox socialist / communist theory from the 19th century is already outdated. With today's runaway productivity we don't need to *limit* ourselves even to the Communist Manifesto's "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need", which is rather strict.

Instead we should just figure out what needs to be *supplied* on a mass scale, and then *supply it*, with whatever workforce is available, with the proceeds going to fulfill *everyone*'s basic needs for living. Anything beyond a generally agreeable *baseline* of production and distribution would then necessarily become *political issues* to be worked out by the self-liberated working class in the interests of the greater society / humanity as a whole.

[the zizekian]

In socialism/communism, how would we deal with lazy people who try to leech off of the system or pretend they can't contribute (like many in the current welfare system)? This is one thing in communism that I've been unable to figure out and it's something my capitalist friends like to throw at me in debates.

P.S. Sorry if there's already a thread on this

Welfare recipients in capitalism are not really lazy; they are bright people who don’t like to be exploited.

[ParaRevolutionary]

Laziness is rather the solution because a lazy person wants to be efficient.

What a load of bollocks.

[the zizekian]

In socialism/communism, how would we deal with lazy people who try to leech off of the system or pretend they can't contribute (like many in the current welfare system)? This is one thing in communism that I've been unable to figure out and it's something my capitalist friends like to throw at me in debates.

P.S. Sorry if there's already a thread on this

In fact, just like hacking can be precious to, indirectly, improve the strength of an electronic system, pretending to be lazy or to be unable to contribute can be precious to improve an economic system.

[ParaRevolutionary]

In fact, just like hacking can be precious to, indirectly, improve the strength of an electronic system, pretending to be lazy or to be unable to contribute can be precious to improve an economic system.

Youve got to be kidding me?!

[the zizekian]

Youve got to be kidding me?!

no

[Thirsty Crow]

It just proves my point, you're incapable of coming to terms with the economic vampirism that takes place in the name of welfare.

All forms of welfare are economically and socially malignant so why do you condemn welfare for the rich while vehemently supporting welfare for the poor?
You're either so brainwashed that you can't see the simple reason, propagated by pro-capitalist politicians and owners of capital themselves, for state aid in social reproduction of labour power, or you've actually been born into such social conditions which disabled you from approaching this issue in a clear manner (maybe both). Beats me.

But to try and offer some common sense for you, consider the situation workers' and potential workers find themselves in. Capital investment acutely lags behind the supply of ready labour power for exploitation. In other words, there are no jobs for everyone currently. Go to a job interview, and you'll find yourself competing with 50 other people for one job opening.
Then go home, which you rent. Out of work, out of any means of subsistence. And prolong this wonderful high life for a year or so.
Now see a point in welfare? So people wouldn't starve to death, so that homelessness doesn't dramatically increase (I bet you'd be irritated as hell itself if there were more bums trying to get your hard earned pennies in the street), so that people don't get sick and drop dead? And you're still of the opinion that this is socially malignant? Well, it speaks for itself, but such sociopathy is potentially dangerous (as well as its flip side, stupidity and a lack to face reality; I don't particularly care for what is the actual condition you're facing).

And to conclude, I really hope you loose your job, or don't get a job, or that you're business fails (and honestly, I can't say that I wished that happened to many people). That's how idiotic fantasies are best dispelled.

[chefdave]

You're either so brainwashed that you can't see the simple reason, propagated by pro-capitalist politicians and owners of capital themselves, for state aid in social reproduction of labour power, or you've actually been born into such social conditions which disabled you from approaching this issue in a clear manner (maybe both). Beats me.

But to try and offer some common sense for you, consider the situation workers' and potential workers find themselves in. Capital investment acutely lags behind the supply of ready labour power for exploitation. In other words, there are no jobs for everyone currently. Go to a job interview, and you'll find yourself competing with 50 other people for one job opening.
Then go home, which you rent. Out of work, out of any means of subsistence. And prolong this wonderful high life for a year or so.
Now see a point in welfare? So people wouldn't starve to death, so that homelessness doesn't dramatically increase (I bet you'd be irritated as hell itself if there were more bums trying to get your hard earned pennies in the street), so that people don't get sick and drop dead? And you're still of the opinion that this is socially malignant? Well, it speaks for itself, but such sociopathy is potentially dangerous (as well as its flip side, stupidity and a lack to face reality; I don't particularly care for what is the actual condition you're facing).

A large welfare bill isn't the sign of the compassionate society it's a sign that something somewhere is going hideously wrong with the economy. The state taxes money away from the working poor, hands it to the workless poor (many of whom end up living more comfetable lives than those in employment) and those who are caught in the middle of this systematic mass transfer of wealth are expected to keep quiet and gratefully accept their diminishing lot.

I will spell it out so you can't confuse it with feeble minded capitalist apologism: I don't have the spare resources to keep other families in a reasonable level of comfort when I barely have a penny to my name. Treating those who work for a living as cash cows to be milked for the benefit of the unemployed (both rich and poor) is akin to creating a slave class that are coerced by society to labour for scant reward. Yes welfare is great for those on the receiving end but it verges on economic abuse for those who landed with the ever increasing bill.


And to conclude, I really hope you loose your job, or don't get a job, or that you're business fails (and honestly, I can't say that I wished that happened to many people). That's how idiotic fantasies are best dispelled.


It doesn't surprise me that you feel this way, most lefties like yourself actually thrive on misery and despair because it helps validate the socialist paradigm. The last thing the left want is to see the end of poverty and suffering as it would consign their ideology to the dustbin of history. I've even come across one lefty who wanted someone else to develop cancer because it would make them realise the importance of the NHS! When people start saying stuff like that you know that wherever they're coming from isn't a good place.

[ParaRevolutionary]

no

Then youre a fool.

[Voice_of_Reason]

In socialism/communism, how would we deal with lazy people who try to leech off of the system or pretend they can't contribute (like many in the current welfare system)? This is one thing in communism that I've been unable to figure out and it's something my capitalist friends like to throw at me in debates

Easy answer. They will. People are gonna leech off of any system, whether it's through capitalism, socialism, communism, or whatever there will be people who cheat the system. Lazy people are lazy.

A Left system isn't going to magically stop lazy people from being themselves.

[ColonelCossack]

lazy people who try to leech off of the system or pretend they can't contribute (like many in the current welfare system

This is actually much more rare than right-wing media would have you believe. People get thoroughly depressed if they don't do anything. In communism, people would be able to work shorter hours anyway, and there wouldn't really be any concept of a "job" as we know it today; so working wouldn't be so much of a drag as it is in capitalism anyway.

Of course, there will be some lazy people, but these will be the overwhelming minority. You cite leeches to the system in modern capitalism; but capitalism hasn't collapsed, has it? (Yet).

[the zizekian]

In socialism/communism, how would we deal with lazy people who try to leech off of the system or pretend they can't contribute (like many in the current welfare system)? This is one thing in communism that I've been unable to figure out and it's something my capitalist friends like to throw at me in debates.

P.S. Sorry if there's already a thread on this

Based on past history, communism problem was that stakhanovists were even less productive than the lazy.

[Thirsty Crow]

A large welfare bill isn't the sign of the compassionate society it's a sign that something somewhere is going hideously wrong with the economy.
Oh, definitely, like the current condition of lack of investemnts in jobs. Though, to be clear, I'm not advocating here that capitalists be forced to invest - I'm actually advocating their liquidation as a social class. I didn't actually imply anything with regard to a "compassionate society" since I've clearly stated that welfare is in the interest of the social reproduction as a whole, including capitalists. Learn to read, or actually bother to read and comprehend what's written.


The state taxes money away from the working poor, hands it to the workless poor (many of whom end up living more comfetable lives than those in employment) and those who are caught in the middle of this systematic mass transfer of wealth are expected to keep quiet and gratefully accept their diminishing lot.Well, first of all, taxes are not accrued solely from wages, so that would mean you're selective in your emphasis.
And second, you keep on asserting the vulgar myth of welfare queens living comfortable lives without any evidence.


I will spell it out so you can't confuse it with feeble minded capitalist apologism: I don't have the spare resources to keep other families in a reasonable level of comfort when I barely have a penny to my name.Try to ask yourself why the hell you don't have a penny to your name.
But I guess the answer is here right from the start: because those undeserving paupers steal from you via the state.


Treating those who work for a living as cash cows to be milked for the benefit of the unemployed (both rich and poor) is akin to creating a slave class that are coerced by society to labour for scant reward. Yes welfare is great for those on the receiving end but it verges on economic abuse for those who landed with the ever increasing bill. Welfare is necessary for stable social reproduction. Try to wrap ypur thick head around that simple fact, alongside some other facts about the activities of the capitalist class.





It doesn't surprise me that you feel this way, most lefties like yourself actually thrive on misery and despair because it helps validate the socialist paradigm. The last thing the left want is to see the end of poverty and suffering as it would consign their ideology to the dustbin of history. I've even come across one lefty who wanted someone else to develop cancer because it would make them realise the importance of the NHS! When people start saying stuff like that you know that wherever they're coming from isn't a good place.
Yes, actually, we mean just the opposite of what we say.
This is all a massive conspiracy of commie freemasons and the illuminati.

But in reality, in fact, communists have always emphaiszed that a social transformation eradicating the capitalist social relations will, of course, take down communism with it. I actually look forward to the day, but of course, you can contine with sputing whichever mindless shit you come up with, but just to make it clear, out of sheer animosity towards scum such as yourself I say that I would like to see you on the dole, which somehow doesn't translate to me wishing other people were in such a condition.

[the zizekian]

In socialism/communism, how would we deal with lazy people who try to leech off of the system or pretend they can't contribute (like many in the current welfare system)? This is one thing in communism that I've been unable to figure out and it's something my capitalist friends like to throw at me in debates.

P.S. Sorry if there's already a thread on this

Without laziness, there is too much production.

[ParaRevolutionary]

Without laziness, there is too much production.

Im going to have to call troll.

[Geiseric]

This arguement relies on the fact that people are naturally lazy and unwilling to co-operate, but these qualities aren't what differentiated humans from Animals, we're naturally willing to work togather because that's how "human nature," manifested itself in the pre historic times.

[the zizekian]

This arguement relies on the fact that people are naturally lazy and unwilling to co-operate, but these qualities aren't what differentiated humans from Animals, we're naturally willing to work togather because that's how "human nature," manifested itself in the pre historic times.

People unwilling to co-operate are called selfish not lazy.

[CommieCoss]

Sure -- well, that "some people" doesn't have to be the *exact same* group of people for their entire lives -- I think we all know that we all have a number of varied interests through the course of our lives, and no one would expect people to turn themselves into *living institutions* under a post-capitalist (communist) system.

If there was a distinct *lack* of liberated labor for some tasks that couldn't be readily transcended then it would be a political issue and maybe everyone would take a turn in putting in the required labor, or some other method, etc.

(This also points, tangentially, to showing that a post-commodity political economy would have a *collective interest* in transcending the more-odious tasks of labor as quickly as possible, as through the improving of technology, so that *no one* has to do them. Contrast this to the *present* system in which labor is a commodity and its concomitant tasks -- no matter how inhumane or distasteful -- will *continue*, since there remains a market for such labor, while developing technology to *overcome* such a need for that labor would be considered more speculative and risky.)

That makes more sense thanks for clearing that up :thumbup1:

[CommieCoss]

Just to be a little clearer, when I refer to people being "lazy", I'm talking more about people who would become lazy (i.e. "cheat the system") and do things like quit their jobs, rather than people who already are lazy. I think I understand how these things work a little more now, though.

P.S. I'm not accusing all people on welfare or other similar programs of being lazy. Just the types of people who abuse such systems and make them look bad.

[ckaihatsu]

Without laziness, there is too much production.





Im going to have to call troll.


Okay, *I'll* step up to this one and see what I can do here....

If 'production' is taken as 'formal work activity that adds to official economic movements' then we may see a situation throughout the world economy in which much work -- white-collar work especially -- is increasingly about finance itself, and contributes nothing to the human condition. It might be thought of as "high-level busywork".

In this environment there *is* "too much production" -- not to mention actual Marxist 'overproduction' -- and a more-widespread social movement towards "laziness", at the least (heh), would serve to counteract the *political* component of people spinning their wheels in busywork financial-oriented work environments.

[l'Enfermé]

There's no such thing as human nature.

[ckaihatsu]

[M]uch work -- white-collar work especially -- is increasingly about finance itself, and contributes nothing to the human condition.





There's no such thing as human nature.


I didn't mean 'human condition' in the sense of "human nature" -- I agree with you there, on your point.

I meant the 'state of the world' -- having people turn their attentions and efforts to financial activity does nothing for humanity as a whole.

[the zizekian]

Just to be a little clearer, when I refer to people being "lazy", I'm talking more about people who would become lazy (i.e. "cheat the system") and do things like quit their jobs, rather than people who already are lazy. I think I understand how these things work a little more now, though.

P.S. I'm not accusing all people on welfare or other similar programs of being lazy. Just the types of people who abuse such systems and make them look bad.

I fact, if I understand you correctly, you are talking about all strategic behaviours, i.e., hiding our true abilities and our true needs. I still think that there is no problem in pretending that I have few abilities and great needs as long as it is done persuasively.

[the zizekian]

Okay, *I'll* step up to this one and see what I can do here....

If 'production' is taken as 'formal work activity that adds to official economic movements' then we may see a situation throughout the world economy in which much work -- white-collar work especially -- is increasingly about finance itself, and contributes nothing to the human condition. It might be thought of as "high-level busywork".

In this environment there *is* "too much production" -- not to mention actual Marxist 'overproduction' -- and a more-widespread social movement towards "laziness", at the least (heh), would serve to counteract the *political* component of people spinning their wheels in busywork financial-oriented work environments.

While staying in your line of thought, I would go much farther than you are. I think the choice is between laziness and war. The question is not will there be a surplus to redistribute or not but will the suspicion that there is someone hiding a surplus from us provokes a war or not.

[the zizekian]

Just to be a little clearer, when I refer to people being "lazy", I'm talking more about people who would become lazy (i.e. "cheat the system") and do things like quit their jobs, rather than people who already are lazy. I think I understand how these things work a little more now, though.

P.S. I'm not accusing all people on welfare or other similar programs of being lazy. Just the types of people who abuse such systems and make them look bad.

The free rider problem is solved through whistleblowers.

[ckaihatsu]

While staying in your line of thought, I would go much farther than you are. I think the choice is between laziness and war. The question is not will there be a surplus to redistribute or not but will the suspicion that there is someone hiding a surplus from us provokes a war or not.


If you mean that the proletariat has an objective interest in class war to secure the surplus it continuously produces, then I agree.

[MotherCossack]

This is actually much more rare than right-wing media would have you believe. People get thoroughly depressed if they don't do anything. In communism, people would be able to work shorter hours anyway, and there wouldn't really be any concept of a "job" as we know it today; so working wouldn't be so much of a drag as it is in capitalism anyway.

Of course, there will be some lazy people, but these will be the overwhelming minority. You cite leeches to the system in modern capitalism; but capitalism hasn't collapsed, has it? (Yet).

i dont think you saw my comment earlier in the life of this thread.... not many people did.... but i am glad to see that we do agree about the odd issue.
so ... i am heartened.... because ... in real life....

you hate me...
i hate you.
we fight always yes we do
with a slip slap happy wack
give a boy a phone
this old girl just has to moan.

[the zizekian]

If you mean that the proletariat has an objective interest in class war to secure the surplus it continuously produces, then I agree.

I think that laziness is the only way out of the class struggle.

[ckaihatsu]

I think that laziness is the only way out of the class struggle.


If you're espousing an attitude of escapism regarding the class struggle then by what credentials do you claim to be a revolutionary?

[the zizekian]

If you're espousing an attitude of escapism regarding the class struggle then by what credentials do you claim to be a revolutionary?

I think that the best way to prepare for war is to cultivate, collectively, laziness or leisure.

[CommieCoss]

I think that the best way to prepare for war is to cultivate, collectively, laziness or leisure.

I don't think I understand what you're trying to get at here, or if you're just trying to troll. What does laziness have to do with revolution, socialism, or even the topic at hand? We want people to be happy and comfortable but still be productive to society.

[the zizekian]

In socialism/communism, how would we deal with lazy people who try to leech off of the system or pretend they can't contribute (like many in the current welfare system)? This is one thing in communism that I've been unable to figure out and it's something my capitalist friends like to throw at me in debates.

P.S. Sorry if there's already a thread on this

A thread about lazy people!?

[ckaihatsu]

I think that the best way to prepare for war is to cultivate, collectively, laziness or leisure.


If you don't want to dialogue and you don't want to stick to the topic then I don't know what you're here for -- it looks like you're free-associating with your train of thought.

[the zizekian]

If you don't want to dialogue and you don't want to stick to the topic then I don't know what you're here for -- it looks like you're free-associating with your train of thought.

A thread about lazy people!?

[ckaihatsu]

A thread about lazy people!?


I'm not a moderator here, so it wouldn't be up to me as to whether such a thread was retained as a valid topic.

But since you're asking, such a topic is *not* inherently political and I *personally* think it would be inappropriate.

[the zizekian]

In socialism/communism, how would we deal with lazy people who try to leech off of the system or pretend they can't contribute (like many in the current welfare system)? This is one thing in communism that I've been unable to figure out and it's something my capitalist friends like to throw at me in debates.

P.S. Sorry if there's already a thread on this

The whole idea of communism is to put an end to exploitation!

[Strannik]

In communist society you can gain reputation and respect only through labour. No possession helps you since everyone can have possessions. Being on "welfare" in a communist society is about the same as being poor in a capitalist society. I only hope there will be much less people on that so-called "welfare".

[the zizekian]

In socialism/communism, how would we deal with lazy people who try to leech off of the system or pretend they can't contribute (like many in the current welfare system)? This is one thing in communism that I've been unable to figure out and it's something my capitalist friends like to throw at me in debates.

P.S. Sorry if there's already a thread on this

The question seems to be what to do with people who have abilities to hide their abilities.

[ckaihatsu]

In socialism/communism, how would we deal with lazy people who try to leech off of the system or pretend they can't contribute (like many in the current welfare system)? This is one thing in communism that I've been unable to figure out and it's something my capitalist friends like to throw at me in debates.

P.S. Sorry if there's already a thread on this





The question seems to be what to do with people who have abilities to hide their abilities.


The problem, ironically, with the slogan of 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his need', is that the slogan itself, while expressing a *communist* sentiment, is actually *idealist* in construction.

The definitions of '[individual] ability' and '[individual] need' are highly variable, and are undefined *specifics* in a *general* slogan.





Instead, we should be talking about 'the full enslavement of machinery' so as to "rescue" it from the current primacy of the social-exchange ritual. With the proletariat in command no machine could "escape" into *any* sense of private ownership or local control. Rather *all* productive equipment would be treated as so many apple trees found in the wild, to be taken from at will with no thought paid as to "exchanges".


*Anyone* who forces a *general* political topic down into hypothetical *specifics* is either consciously or inadvertently using a trick of mixing scales of magnitude. It's not for a *system*-based politics to concern itself with every individual or petty detail. Rather, the question should be is it a *systemic* improvement that would be better *in general*.


Generalizations-Characterizations

http://postimage.org/image/1d6itveo4/

[the zizekian]

In socialism/communism, how would we deal with lazy people who try to leech off of the system or pretend they can't contribute (like many in the current welfare system)? This is one thing in communism that I've been unable to figure out and it's something my capitalist friends like to throw at me in debates.

P.S. Sorry if there's already a thread on this

What to do with people who have abilities to hide their abilities? We terrorize them until they behave in a transparent manner.

[CommieCoss]

I feel like this thread has degenerated in a rather sad and confusing matter

[the zizekian]

In socialism/communism, how would we deal with lazy people who try to leech off of the system or pretend they can't contribute (like many in the current welfare system)? This is one thing in communism that I've been unable to figure out and it's something my capitalist friends like to throw at me in debates.

P.S. Sorry if there's already a thread on this


Matthew 6:26

Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they?

[CommieCoss]

...aaaand the bible scriptures come out. I think we're done here.

[the zizekian]

The Christian Agape as political love means that unconditional, egalitarian love for one's neighbour can serve as the foundation for a new order. The form of appearance of this love is what we might also call the idea of communism: the urge to realise an egalitarian social order of solidarity.

--Zizek

http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2011/08/08/3287944.htm

[Minima]

will someone plz ban this guy he spams every single thread with his inane bs

[ckaihatsu]

(Yeesh...!) *Whew!*

[the zizekian]

In socialism/communism, how would we deal with lazy people who try to leech off of the system or pretend they can't contribute (like many in the current welfare system)? This is one thing in communism that I've been unable to figure out and it's something my capitalist friends like to throw at me in debates.

P.S. Sorry if there's already a thread on this

Pretending is already a contribution.

[RGacky3]

In socialism/communism, how would we deal with lazy people who try to leech off of the system or pretend they can't contribute (like many in the current welfare system)? This is one thing in communism that I've been unable to figure out and it's something my capitalist friends like to throw at me in debates.

P.S. Sorry if there's already a thread on this


Given what we've seen its unlikely that it would be a major problem, most humans naturally want to be productive, especially if they have a say in their own production.

[the zizekian]

Given what we've seen its unlikely that it would be a major problem, most humans naturally want to be productive, especially if they have a say in their own production.

We have seen a lot of empty shelves in communist regimes stores.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

because people "have the ability to hide their abilities"?! is this serious?

[the zizekian]

In socialism/communism, how would we deal with lazy people who try to leech off of the system or pretend they can't contribute (like many in the current welfare system)? This is one thing in communism that I've been unable to figure out and it's something my capitalist friends like to throw at me in debates.

P.S. Sorry if there's already a thread on this

Think about bluffing on having expensive needs, we are also not all made equal in our respective ability to hide our needs.

[RGacky3]

We have seen a lot of empty shelves in communist regimes stores.

... what does tha have to do with my post or the post I was replying too ???

[the zizekian]

... what does tha have to do with my post or the post I was replying too ???

Everything I think.

[RGacky3]

No it does'nt, not having enough consumer products, or having a lack of supply has nothing to do with people somehow being lazy and not wanting to work???

Its funny that in the country I live in, the welfare system is large enough that you can live comfortably without every working, yet only a 2% unemployment and a booming economy.

[the zizekian]

Its funny that in the country I live in, the welfare system is large enough that you can live comfortably without every working, yet only a 2% unemployment and a booming economy.

You don't live in a communist country I guess.

[RGacky3]

You don't live in a communist country I guess.

You obviously did'nt understand my point, read it again.

[the zizekian]

You obviously did'nt understand my point, read it again.

The opening post is about communism.

[RGacky3]

So what? Read the actual point, and make the connection, its not that difficult.

[the zizekian]

So what? Read the actual point, and make the connection, its not that difficult.

It's a diversion from the opening post.

[RGacky3]

Allright, let me break it down for you, PLEASE try and follow along.

YOU: if communism was around people would just be lazy, since they don't have to work, or they would just be leaches, since they get what they need anyway.

ME: No that is'nt the case, because in societies that may not be communist but have a situation where it would be more than possible to do what your are saying, i.e. be leeches, not work and so on, due to very extensive welfare and unemployment benefits, that DOES NOT happen, like in Norway, where one can live comfortable not working, yet it only has 2% unemployment.

See the connection? If it would be a problem in communism, it would be a problem in social democracies as well.

[the zizekian]

Allright, let me break it down for you, PLEASE try and follow along.

YOU: if communism was around people would just be lazy, since they don't have to work, or they would just be leaches, since they get what they need anyway.

ME: No that is'nt the case, because in societies that may not be communist but have a situation where it would be more than possible to do what your are saying, i.e. be leeches, not work and so on, due to very extensive welfare and unemployment benefits, that DOES NOT happen, like in Norway, where one can live comfortable not working, yet it only has 2% unemployment.

See the connection? If it would be a problem in communism, it would be a problem in social democracies as well.

The goal of communism is to destroy capitalism not to tame it. It takes very special incentives to work towards such a goal.

[the zizekian]

In socialism/communism, how would we deal with lazy people who try to leech off of the system or pretend they can't contribute (like many in the current welfare system)? This is one thing in communism that I've been unable to figure out and it's something my capitalist friends like to throw at me in debates.

P.S. Sorry if there's already a thread on this

Enough of hypocritical naiveties! A communist revolution can only be made with the determination of people fed up of being accused of abusing the system.

[ckaihatsu]

In socialism/communism, how would we deal with lazy people who try to leech off of the system or pretend they can't contribute (like many in the current welfare system)? This is one thing in communism that I've been unable to figure out and it's something my capitalist friends like to throw at me in debates.

P.S. Sorry if there's already a thread on this





What to do with people who have abilities to hide their abilities? We terrorize them until they behave in a transparent manner.


[...]





Enough of hypocritical naiveties! A communist revolution can only be made with the determination of people fed up of being accused of abusing the system.


There's a contradiction in your position here, TZ. Should those who "hide their abilities" be terrorized or should they get fed up with being accused of abusing the system and make a communist revolution -- ?

[the zizekian]

There's a contradiction in your position here, TZ. Should those who "hide their abilities" be terrorized or should they get fed up with being accused of abusing the system and make a communist revolution -- ?

We have to terrorise the capitalists for hiding their abilities at finding scapegoats.

[ckaihatsu]

We have to terrorise the capitalists for hiding their abilities at finding scapegoats.


= D


Nice save.

[the zizekian]

We have to terrorise the capitalists for hiding their abilities at finding scapegoats.

Only the so-called “welfare queens” can terrorize corporate welfare bums.

[RGacky3]

The goal of communism is to destroy capitalism not to tame it. It takes very special incentives to work towards such a goal.

Again .... TOTALLY ignoring the point ....

I have a feeling you have the inability to put 2 points together to understand an argument.

[danyboy27]

The goal of communism is to destroy capitalism not to tame it. It takes very special incentives to work towards such a goal.

he is not saying that social democracy is the way to go, Only that taking care of the people who dosnt work wouldnt be a problem in a communist/socialist system based on the fact that it seem to be functionnal in a lot of capitalist countries.

i have made a similar point several posts ago.

[the zizekian]

he is not saying that social democracy is the way to go, Only that taking care of the people who dosnt work wouldnt be a problem in a communist/socialist system based on the fact that it seem to be functionnal in a lot of capitalist countries.

i have made a similar point several posts ago.

The class war endeavours to destroy any surplus as its main objective.

[RGacky3]

please zizekian, stop talking about shit which you have no idea about.

[the zizekian]

please zizekian, stop talking about shit which you have no idea about.

Revolutions don't fall from the sky.

[RGacky3]

no they don't, very few things do. I still have yet to see anything coherant from you, much less a responce to my point.

[the zizekian]

no they don't, very few things do. I still have yet to see anything coherant from you, much less a responce to my point.

I'm not at your service!

[RGacky3]

no, your obviously not, well if you don't want to engage in coherant discussion then I don't know why your here.

[the zizekian]

no, your obviously not, well if you don't want to engage in coherant discussion then I don't know why your here.

to fight coherently

[ckaihatsu]

To spout ersatz aphorisms.

[Strannik]

I wanted to say that I have personally always gotten the feeling, that using "from each..." to describe immediate postrevolutionary society misrepresents the immediate aims of marxists and lets us look rather impractical. Marx uses this sentence to describe future evolved communism, where people have lived together for many years without mutual exploitation and individual's basic outlook of life has changed. Wasn't the entire point of the "Gotha program" to criticise a socialist program that was too idealistic and impractical? Yet the point of Marx "something like this will be possible only in the future, not immediately" has somehow become the definition of marxist aims! At least this is how I feel.

[RGacky3]

BTW, this was young Marx's vision of a speculative future communism, so its really not that relevant today, where our goal is fighting capitalism.

[the zizekian]

Fighting prejudices against welfare recipients is a big part of fight capitalism coherently.

[ckaihatsu]

The ultimate revolutionary test is coherent use of unprejudiced surplus.


x D

[the zizekian]

The ultimate revolutionary test is coherent use of unprejudiced surplus.


x D

By definition, surplus is not needed.

[ckaihatsu]

By definition, surplus is not needed.


(I was being satirical of your semantic stylings.)

[the zizekian]

(I was being satirical of your semantic stylings.)

sarcasm carcass

[Jimmie Higgins]

I wanted to say that I have personally always gotten the feeling, that using "from each..." to describe immediate postrevolutionary society misrepresents the immediate aims of marxists and lets us look rather impractical. Marx uses this sentence to describe future evolved communism, where people have lived together for many years without mutual exploitation and individual's basic outlook of life has changed. Wasn't the entire point of the "Gotha program" to criticise a socialist program that was too idealistic and impractical? Yet the point of Marx "something like this will be possible only in the future, not immediately" has somehow become the definition of marxist aims! At least this is how I feel.

I think the further demarcation and commodification of various labor "abilities" in capitalism since that time (i.e. rise of petty-bourgeois modern professionals, increased mental labor as proletarian labor, taylorization etc) as well as the shadow of forced labor in the USSR or other so-called communist countries has changed the way people read this particular line. It gives it a slightly, "we will work you to the bone" sort of flavor when read by itself with a conception of labor and abilities in the capitalist sense... you wouldn't want capitalists saying in a job interview: oh the requirements is everything you are able to do. Undoubtedly this would mean doing more and working harder than is desirable. Add people's perceptions of the USSR on top of that and it sounds like: we will work you incredibly hard and in return you get this loaf of bread.

Yes the phrase is general (I don't know if it's idealistic), but I don't think it was supposed to be a program, just an observation of how the whole conception of production/consumption would be different. This structure is basically how people existed in societies with small groups and little class distinction (hence why I don't think it's idealistic - this was more or less the arrangement until class divisions took hold). Various tribal groups have been shown to have incorporated people with what we consider to be mental illness into their society despite maybe not being able to hunt or have the concentration to make tools or other things. So their abilities didn't allow them to do one of the regular and more central productive tasks, but they were able to contribute to the group by being bards or shaman or whatnot. They did for the group what their abilities allowed them to do and in return they were taken care of by the society. The same goes for people who just weren't good at a particular task - I read an account of a European meeting an Inuit group and discovering that they'd talk shit about other people's abilities in the group: "So-and-so makes shit canoes". But it wasn't a judgement on the person's worth, just a statement about their ability in that one area and in other areas they were valued for their contributions.

In capitalism, our "self-worth" objectively is what skills we can sell and look what happens to people who can't accomplish what's required - schizophrenics, regardless of how severe they are affected, are just tossed out if they can't hold a steady job - drug addicts, manic depressives, and people with less obvious obsticals to the demands of wage-labor are left to rot (or given a dole if they are in a more reformed government than the US where the sick and old and mentally ill are just shuffled around).

So I like this slogan and to me it simply reads: society will take what you can contribute to the whole and in return you will share in that. This is opposed to capitalist labor requirements: we will take what we need when we need it and if you are unable to find an opening or fulfill these requirements, then tough shit, it's probably your fault anyway.

[the zizekian]

In socialism/communism, how would we deal with lazy people who try to leech off of the system or pretend they can't contribute (like many in the current welfare system)? This is one thing in communism that I've been unable to figure out and it's something my capitalist friends like to throw at me in debates.

P.S. Sorry if there's already a thread on this

Pretending is already a daring contribution.