Lazy People Get Paid in Communism?

[Bostana]

My Capitalist 'friend' at school says that with Communism that people can do absolutely no work and still get paid the same as everybody else. Can someone help me rebuke this?

[Franz Fanonipants]

lazy people get paid in capitalism/thread

[TheGodlessUtopian]

There is no monetary currencies in communism... everyone works and thus producing what everyone needs.

[Ostrinski]

If there is a surplus then I fail to see the problem... ?

[Blanquist]

'Those who don't work, don't eat'

Tell him under socialism everyone will have to work, and there will be no such thing as current parasites at the top who leach off their dividends and interest. And those at the bottom who lay around collecting unemployment without looking for a job and food-stamps etc.

Under Socialism work is available to all and those, able bodied, will have to work to survive. No free rides or 'welfare queens' under socialism.

Cheers.

[Caj]

There won't be any form of remuneration under the higher phase of communism; instead, people will be free to work to the best of their abilities and take from the collective produce in accordance with their needs. The needs of lazy people are naturally going to reflect their lack of work and be less than that of those who aren't lazy. In addition, the higher phase of communism will only begin once the progression and use of technology ensures a state of post-scarcity of necessities. There wouldn't, therefore, be any serious problem if lazy people took from society without contributing to it through labor.

Under the lower phase of communism, before post-scarcity has been established, remuneration will be based on the amount and degree of labor expended. Lazy people, therefore, would receive less than those who aren't lazy.

[Blanquist]

There won't be any form of remuneration under the higher phase of communism; instead, people will be free to work to the best of their abilities and take from the collective produce in accordance with their needs. The needs of lazy people are naturally going to reflect their lack of work and be less than that of those who aren't lazy. In addition, the higher phase of communism will only begin once the progression and use of technology ensures a state of post-scarcity of necessities. Under the lower phase of communism, before post-scarcity has been established, remuneration will be based on the amount and degree of labor expended. Lazy people, therefore, would receive less than those who aren't lazy.

I think..

When talking about 'the higher phase of communism' most people tune out, and you can't blame them. As you are talking about some possible fantasy at worst or something several generations in the future at best.

Socialism has a myriad of advantages that should be emphasized without delving into the far distant future.

[ParaRevolutionary]

You cant. Ive come across a mere handful that believe that he who doesnt work, doesnt eat.

[Ostrinski]

There is an on going thread on the matter

http://www.revleft.com/vb/communism-and-retention-t170280/index.html?t=170280


'Those who don't work, don't eat'

Tell him under socialism everyone will have to work, and there will be no such thing as current parasites at the top who leach off their dividends and interest. And those at the bottom who lay around collecting unemployment without looking for a job and food-stamps etc.

Under Socialism work is available to all and those, able bodied, will have to work to survive. No free rides or 'welfare queens' under socialism.

Cheers.Don't work or starve policies keep in place the market apparatus, and by extension exchange-oriented production?

[Omsk]

There is a thread designed to answer such 101 questions,might i suggest that debates such as this one,automatically go into the mentioned threads.

[Caj]

I think..

When talking about 'the higher phase of communism' most people tune out, and you can't blame them. As you are talking about some possible fantasy at worst or something several generations in the future at best.

Socialism has a myriad of advantages that should be emphasized without delving into the far distant future.

The higher phase of communism isn't a utopian fantasy. It's just a system in which production and distribution are organized in accordance with a state of post-scarcity, i.e. when remuneration, exchange, markets, etc. no longer retain any sort of function.

[the zizekian]

My Capitalist 'friend' at school says that with Communism that people can do absolutely no work and still get paid the same as everybody else. Can someone help me rebuke this?

Communism is, to me, a system in which the work production is strictly geared towards achieving only one goal: the equitable sharing of leisure activities (“laziness”).

[ParaRevolutionary]

Communism is, to me, a system in which the work production is strictly geared towards achieving only one goal: the equitable sharing of leisure activities (“laziness”).

This guy is a troll.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

This guy is a troll.

Might be that it is so, but what there was said is true. We should be lazy, laziness is good; why else would we minimise the necessary labour time? Just so we can produce even more surplus while never having the time to use the product thereof?

[Blanquist]

I see some of you are not familiar with Lafargue's classic "The right to be lazy"

I think its must reading!

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lafargue/1883/lazy/

[the zizekian]

In past communism history, Stakhanovists received more rewards than other workers and this inequality led nowhere.

[ParaRevolutionary]

Might be that it is so, but what there was said is true. We should be lazy, laziness is good; why else would we minimise the necessary labour time? Just so we can produce even more surplus while never having the time to use the product thereof?

No, laziness is not good.

[Ostrinski]

No, laziness is not good.Speak for yourself. I quite enjoy it, don't knock it til you try it.

[the zizekian]

Laziness is good because masochism is bad.

[ParaRevolutionary]

Speak for yourself. I quite enjoy it, don't knock it til you try it.

I have a little more self respect than that.

[ParaRevolutionary]

Laziness is good because masochism is bad.

Rape is good because murder is bad.

[the zizekian]

It is not so much that lazy people get paid in communism but that lazy people get their freedom from prejudices only through communism.

[ParaRevolutionary]

It is not so much that lazy people get paid in communism but that lazy people get their freedom from prejudices only through communism.

Laziness is not something to praise, and chastising someone for being lazy is not prejudiced.

[Caj]

Laziness is not something to praise

Why not?

[the zizekian]

Another way to see it is that money could only have been invented by lazy persons to start with.

[ParaRevolutionary]

Why not?

Are you serious?

[ParaRevolutionary]

Another way to see it is that money could only have been invented by lazy persons to start with.

I seriously doubt that.

[Caj]

Are you serious?

Yes

[Comrade Samuel]

It's funny you would mention it, I've been doing much of the same exept my conservatives I would actualy consider as friends. They will say "without incentive nobody will do the hard jobs and society will just fall apart"

The easiest refute: The incentive is providing for those who are willing to work as hard as you do, Those who are capable yet still refuse to work are not so hard to root out and on top of that I would go so far as to say capitalism does a far better job of providing for the lazy than communism ever could.

This is usually where the topic shifts to "how much faith do you have in people?" and I still feel as though there is more needing to be said.

[ParaRevolutionary]

Yes

Why should we praise people who merely leech off of the worker?

[Ostrinski]

Laziness (leisure) brings out the best traits in each individual.

[the zizekian]

By definition, capitalists are those who get (highly) paid with no work.

[ParaRevolutionary]

Laziness (leisure) brings out the best traits in each individual.

And what might some of those traits be?

[Ostrinski]

And what might some of those traits be?Personal strengths are exercised and developed during leisurely activities, and communism should shorten if not close the gap between work and leisure.

[Caj]

Why should we praise people who merely leech off of the worker?

How is that synonymous with laziness?

[the zizekian]

A lazy person is in fact a specialist in use value.

[ParaRevolutionary]

Personal strengths are exercised and developed during leisurely activities, and communism should shorten if not close the gap between work and leisure.

Doesnt work also do this?

[ParaRevolutionary]

How is that synonymous with laziness?

If youre recieving something without ever contributing in any way youre a leech.

[Ostrinski]

Doesnt work also do this?No. "Work," as we know it today is alienated labor which can actually be considered to be a deterrent to productivity.

[Ostrinski]

If youre recieving something without ever contributing in any way youre a leech.So you believe in the preservation of the market apparatus and exchange-oriented production?

[the zizekian]

"Work" is a meaningless word in capitalism.

[ParaRevolutionary]

No. "Work," as we know it today is alienated labor which can actually be considered to be a deterrent to productivity.

Im implying work of any kind, not necessarily work as we know it today.

[Ostrinski]

Work of any kind is alienated labor, certainly.

[ParaRevolutionary]

So you believe in the preservation of the market apparatus and exchange-oriented production?

I believe we all reap what we all sow, not all should reap what some sow.

[Ostrinski]

I believe we all reap what we all sow, not all should reap what some sow.so
So you believe in the preservation of the market apparatus and exchange-oriented production?

[Caj]

If youre recieving something without ever contributing in any way youre a leech.

If there's a state of post-scarcity, such behavior can hardly be called "leeching." The concept of "leeching" presupposes scarcity.

[ParaRevolutionary]

If there's a state of post-scarcity, such behavior can hardly be called "leeching." The concept of "leeching" presupposes scarcity.

Actually its the act of taking something without giving anything in return.

[Ostrinski]

Quit moralizing non-moral issues. I can't stand it when people do that.

[o well this is ok I guess]

Bro if you want to work so bad you can, 12 hours a day if it suits you.
Though assuming that in that span of time you produce more than you are able to personally consume, we can hardly be blamed for wanting a bit of the surplus.
Unless you'd rather withhold it, which is probably worth restriction on this site.

[Caj]

Actually its the act of taking something without giving anything in return.

Ok, and by that definition what the fuck is wrong with leeching? Presupposing a state of post-scarcity, leeching will have no negative ramifications whatsoever.

[ParaRevolutionary]

Bro if you want to work so bad you can, 12 hours a day if it suits you.
Though assuming that in that span of time you produce more than you are able to personally consume, we can hardly be blamed for wanting a bit of the surplus.
Unless you'd rather withhold it, which is probably worth restriction on this site.

And thats what every discussion comes down to in the end, restricting or banning someone.

[Ostrinski]

Well if you don't like the policy you can always leave

[o well this is ok I guess]

And thats what every discussion comes down to in the end, restricting or banning someone. No, it's about taking a view that is, for lack of better word, reactionary.
You're basically reproducing the system of exchange and accumulation.

[ParaRevolutionary]

Ok, and by that definition what the fuck is wrong with leeching? Presupposing a state of post-scarcity, leeching will have no negative ramifications whatsoever.

How can you be so sure it will have no negative ramifications? Im stunned that a group of people that rail against the bourgeoisie for reaping what is sown by the proletariat can then turn around and defend those within the proletariat that feel they have the right to reap what their proletarian comrades have sown.

[ParaRevolutionary]

No, it's about taking a view that is, for lack of better word, reactionary.
You're basically reproducing the system of exchange and accumulation.

It has nothing to do with exchange, it has to do with contribution.

[the zizekian]

By the way, the best way not to fall victim of parasite is to be lazy.

[ParaRevolutionary]

By the way, the best way not to fall victim of parasite is to be lazy.

Thats like saying the best way to avoid eating too much is to starve yourself.

[ParaRevolutionary]

Id also like to mention that this topic has been brought up before and ive seen several posts, by other members, that have agreed with the same stance ive taken.

[the zizekian]

Reciprocity or contribution is not a good argument because it forgets the dimension of gift: a gift has more powerful positive effects than a supposedly equivalent exchange.

[o well this is ok I guess]

It has nothing to do with exchange, it has to do with contribution. Well assuming a shoemaker cannot eat shoes, I am assuming a form of exchange will take place. You seem to bent on the idea of producing what you will and sitting on it, even if a surplus is produced.
But it's quite simple: if 400 turnips were produced and only 300 could be eaten by the working population, you'd have to be a dick just to let the other 100 rot.

[o well this is ok I guess]

Id also like to mention that this topic has been brought up before and ive seen several posts, by other members, that have agreed with the same stance ive taken. And if they enter this thread, we'll treat them the same.

[ParaRevolutionary]

Well assuming a shoemaker cannot eat shoes, I am assuming a form of exchange will take place. You seem to bent on the idea of producing what you will and sitting on it, even if a surplus is produced.
But it's quite simple: if 400 turnips were produced and only 300 could be eaten by the working population, you'd have to be a dick just to let the other 100 rot.

Im not implying that one reaps specifically and solely what he sows.

[o well this is ok I guess]

Im not implying that one reaps specifically and solely what he sows. Sure you are: only producers are entitled to products, even in the event of surplus.

[the zizekian]

What we see in this very thread is that a hypothetical lazy person is contributing a lot only by attracting people who are desperate.

[the zizekian]

Sure you are: only producers are entitled to products, even in the event of surplus.

In the event of extreme scarcity, the lazy has still the solution.

[ParaRevolutionary]

Sure you are: only producers are entitled to products, even in the event of surplus.

What i am saying is one cannot reap what one does not sow, not one cannot reap what one does not specifically sow, which is what i think some people thought i was implying.

[Caj]

How can you be so sure it will have no negative ramifications?

. . . because there is no scarcity. Obviously.

[o well this is ok I guess]

What i am saying is one cannot reap what one does not sow, not one cannot reap what one does not specifically sow, which is what i think some people thought i was implying. Have I said "specifically"? I will reiterate: you are saying that the class of producers ought not part with the general mass of products even in the event of surplus.

In the event of extreme scarcity, the lazy has still the solution. I'm interested. Could you elaborate?

[ParaRevolutionary]

Sure you are: only producers are entitled to products, even in the event of surplus.

That is what im saying, not that specific producers are only entitled to the products they produce.

[ParaRevolutionary]

. . . because there is no scarcity. Obviously.

Im referring to ramifications beyond that.

[the zizekian]

What should not be forgotten is that production starts with the GIFT of natural resources.

[ParaRevolutionary]

Have I said "specifically"? I will reiterate: you are saying that the class of producers ought not part with the general mass of products even in the event of surplus.

Perphaps not you specifically, however i believe thats what some people are under the impression that im implying.

[the zizekian]

Such passion about the lazy!

[o well this is ok I guess]

That is what im saying, not that specific producers are only entitled to the products they produce. And I have said that you have said so.
And once again: you may as well be a capitalist. You're unwilling to part with surplus, and you'll defend work even where work itself is unnecessary.
And as was already said, no one is down with your petty moralizing.

[Bostana]

Thanks for the post guys so can you correct me If i am wrong.

In a total Communist world then there is no need for currency and everybody works to his abilities and receives what he needs.
Like the Marx quote

P.S.
This guy will make you laugh he actually said that the government controls everything in Communism. I told him that there is no Government in Communism he just shrugged me off.

[ParaRevolutionary]

And I have said that you have said so.
And once again: you may as well be a capitalist. You're unwilling to part with surplus, and you'll defend work even where work itself is unnecessary.
And as was already said, no one is down with your petty moralizing.

I dont believe in providing for those who merely feel they shouldnt work. If youre unable to work thats one thing, if youre unwilling to work thats entirely another.

[o well this is ok I guess]

I dont believe in providing for those who merely feel they shouldnt work. If youre unable to work thats one thing, if youre unwilling to work thats entirely another. Yes, and again, you'll let surplus rot from your moralizing. I will reiterate: you may as well be a capitalist.
And besides, if we were to judge each other by our daily productive capacity, I daresay the lot of us would not eat: who here actually produces something at work?

[the zizekian]

I dont believe in providing for those who merely feel they shouldnt work. If youre unable to work thats one thing, if youre unwilling to work thats entirely another.

If you don’t want to provide for those who merely feel they shouldn’t work then don’t touch to natural resources.

[the zizekian]

Thanks for the post guys so can you correct me If i am wrong.

In a total Communist world then there is no need for currency and everybody works to his abilities and receives what he needs.
Like the Marx quote

P.S.
This guy will make you laugh he actually said that the government controls everything in Communism. I told him that there is no Government in Communism he just shrugged me off.

It is precisely because China was once dreaming the communist dream that it now has a system in which the lazy are not getting paid.

[ParaRevolutionary]

Yes, and again, you'll let surplus rot from your moralizing. I will reiterate: you may as well be a capitalist.
And besides, if we were to judge each other by our daily productive capacity, I daresay the lot of us would not eat: who here actually produces something at work?

Im in construction, however thats here nor there. I never implied im in favor of letting surplus spoil, im in favor of either strategic reserves or increasing product supply to the contributing people.

[the zizekian]

Im in construction, however thats here nor there. I never implied im in favor of letting surplus spoil, im in favor of either strategic reserves or increasing product supply to the contributing people.

To contribute people should have natural resources.

[ParaRevolutionary]

To contribute people should have natural resources.

Im pretty confident every country has natural resources of some kind.

[the zizekian]

Im pretty confident every country has natural resources of some kind.

They all have stolen natural resources.

[Minima]

It is precisely because China was once dreaming the communist dream that it now has a system in which the lazy are not getting paid.


what is this inane drivel

[the zizekian]

what is this inane drivel

We don’t live in an ideal world.

[ParaRevolutionary]

They all have stolen natural resources.

So land in general, whether occupied by those native to it or not, is stolen?

[the zizekian]

So land in general, whether occupied by those native to it or not, is stolen?

Communism 101: Property is theft.

[Decommissioner]

No, laziness is not good.

Laziness is good. "productivity" for productivity's sake is bad.

So long as a society under communism we maintain a comfortable surplus, "laziness" (ie engaging in personally productive activity that objectively serves no purpose to society) should be status quo. Why would we want everyone to engage in socially necessary labor at all times under a society that has 100% employment rates? We would be overly productive, we already overproduce under capitalism and half of our work weeks are merely for accumulation of profits. Get rid of the army of unemployed, and labor for profit, in conjuntion with improved automation...I think under these circumstances it would make more sense for laziness to be spread far and wide.

[ParaRevolutionary]

Communism 101: Property is theft.

Communism 101: All people hold all land, factories and so on.

[the zizekian]

Communism 101: All people hold all land, factories and so on.

Holding is not owning.

[ParaRevolutionary]

Laziness is good. "productivity" for productivity's sake is bad.

So long as a society under communism we maintain a comfortable surplus, "laziness" (ie engaging in personally productive activity that objectively serves no purpose to society) should be status quo. Why would we want everyone to engage in socially necessary labor at all times under a society that has 100% employment rates? We would be overly productive, we already overproduce under capitalism and half of our work weeks are merely for accumulation of profits. Get rid of the army of unemployed, and labor for profit, in conjuntion with improved automation...I think under these circumstances it would make more sense for laziness to be spread far and wide.

Or people work in shifts, which is what i think would work best, so that everyone contributes as well as gets time off.

[ParaRevolutionary]

Holding is not owning.

Elaborate.

[o well this is ok I guess]

Im in construction, however thats here nor there. I never implied im in favor of letting surplus spoil, im in favor of either strategic reserves or increasing product supply to the contributing people. which of course implies spoliation. Dunno if you've ever stored food without it spoiling brosephicles, but I sure haven't. Don't think any business has ever been without spoiled inventory, brosephicles. But sure, hoard vegetables until they're no good (for the purpose of "having a reserve", of course). But I don't think any of us are down with that simply because you don't want someone to work less than you.

[the zizekian]

Or people work in shifts, which is what i think would work best, so that everyone contributes as well as gets time off.

The owners of the means of production would still not contribute.

[La Peur Rouge]

I never implied im in favor of letting surplus spoil, im in favor of either strategic reserves or increasing product supply to the contributing people.

But what is the point? If there is a surplus you're just denying things to people when the contributing people already have what they need and want.

[ParaRevolutionary]

which of course implies spoliation. Dunno if you've ever stored food without it spoiling brosephicles, but I sure haven't. Don't think any business has ever been without spoiled inventory, brosephicles. But sure, hoard vegetables until they're no good (for the purpose of "having a reserve", of course). But I don't think any of us are down with that simply because you don't want someone to work less than you.

Strategic reserves in regards to surplus of any kind. As far as food goes if it cant be stored then it would be distributed to the contributing people, like i said.

[the zizekian]

was

Strategic reserves in regards to surplus of any kind. As far as food goes if it cant be stored then it would be distributed to the contributing people, like i said.

Surplus and capitalism go together: no capitalism, no surplus.

[ParaRevolutionary]

The owners of the means of production would still not contribute.

The vast majority of your posts have been either out of context or made little to no sense, please stop posting.

[o well this is ok I guess]

was

Strategic reserves in regards to surplus of any kind. As far as food goes if it cant be stored then it would be distributed to the contributing people, like i said. lol distributing surplus
You know what makes food surplus, right? Won't be eaten. Too much for the whole to eat. Three bowls of rice when you only wanted one. And, the end result, spoilage!
And here I thought I would stop dumpster diving after the revolution.

[the zizekian]

Laziness is not the problem, the surplus is the problem.

[o well this is ok I guess]

Surplus and capitalism go together: no capitalism, no surplus. Not true, so long as surplus merely refers to that which is produced beyond its capacity to be consumed. This could occur under any system, mathematically speaking.

[the zizekian]

Not true, so long as surplus merely refers to that which is produced beyond its capacity to be consumed. This could occur under any system, mathematically speaking.

Scarcity was everywhere in communism.

[ParaRevolutionary]

But what is the point? If there is a surplus you're just denying things to people when the contributing people already have what they need and want.

Well then why not ask the question as to why were even producing a surplus in the first place?

[o well this is ok I guess]

Scarcity was everywhere in communism. And scarcity, so long as it refers to a point where a product is produced below its capacity to be consumed then it can occur in any system.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

[the zizekian]

Well then why not ask the question as to why were even producing a surplus in the first place?

The surplus comes from exploiting the non-owners.

[Tenka]

Well then why not ask the question as to why were even producing a surplus in the first place?

Because we can, and subsistence farming is really really lame. Are you, perchance, under the influence of Maoism?

[ParaRevolutionary]

Because we can, and subsistence farming is really really lame. Are you, perchance, under the influence of Maoism?

No. Im merely attempting so address every angle of the subject at hand.

[the zizekian]

Communists should not forget the reasons why the pre-capitalist economic system (potlatch) was destroying any surplus.

[o well this is ok I guess]

No. Im merely attempting so address every angle of the subject at hand. when machines can produce hundreds of a product in a matter of minutes, it's a bit difficult to produce the exact amount demanded. And nevermind that the specific amount demanded is probably a lot more difficult to ascertain. So, is it not better to produce surplus rather than risk scarcity?

[o well this is ok I guess]

Communists should not forget the reasons why the pre-capitalist economic system (potlatch) was destroying any surplus. We're not forgetting, we're simply saying that it occurs.
And besides, potlach is hella lame, both before and now (great source of game meat, though).

[the zizekian]

when machines can produce hundreds of a product in a matter of minutes, it's a bit difficult to produce the exact amount demanded. And nevermind that the specific amount demanded is probably a lot more difficult to ascertain. So, is it not better to produce surplus rather than risk scarcity?

The ecological degradation should not be underestimated.

[ParaRevolutionary]

when machines can produce hundreds of a product in a matter of minutes, it's a bit difficult to produce the exact amount demanded. And nevermind that the specific amount demanded is probably a lot more difficult to ascertain. So, is it not better to produce surplus rather than risk scarcity?

Of course surplus production is better. Now, in light of that, isnt everyone contributing equally better than some contributing and others refusing to?

[o well this is ok I guess]

The ecological degradation should not be underestimated. Destruction of wealth isn't always a chill composting party, brosephicles.

[o well this is ok I guess]

Of course surplus production is better. Now, in light of that, isnt everyone contributing equally better than some contributing and others refusing to? But then again, spoilage ain't cool.
Shit man I'll be the one to work, you can do all the laziness. Is this a fair arrangement for you? I don't mind, really.

[the zizekian]

Destruction of wealth isn't always a chill composting party, brosephicles.

Machines can produce a lot of toxic waste.

[o well this is ok I guess]

Machines can produce a lot of toxic waste. That they can, bro. And, in light of such, it's probably best not to squander the products produced, as producing only to later destroy is probably not environmentally sound.
Cmon man, the best part about potlach is giving and fresh game.

[the zizekian]

That they can, bro. And, in light of such, it's probably best not to squander the products produced, as producing only to later destroy is probably not environmentally sound.
Cmon man, the best part about potlach is giving and fresh game.

When products are commodities, they are produced not to be used.

[o well this is ok I guess]

When products are commodities, they are produced not to be used. An object can't have an exchange value without a use value, brosephicles. And as such, it cannot circulate as a commodity.

[the zizekian]

An object can't have an exchange value without a use value, brosephicles. And as such, it cannot circulate as a commodity.

Money can’t have a use value if it is to have an exchange value.

[ParaRevolutionary]

But then again, spoilage ain't cool.
Shit man I'll be the one to work, you can do all the laziness. Is this a fair arrangement for you? I don't mind, really.

Well in the ideal society id want to work, id actually feel like i was contributing towards the betterment of the society. I just think that if im willing and able to put that effort in then so should others.

[the zizekian]

Well in the ideal society id want to work, id actually feel like i was contributing towards the betterment of the society. I just think that if im willing and able to put that effort in then so should others.

Wishing for more efforts is masochism.

[Ostrinski]

It has nothing to do with exchange, it has to do with contribution.rofl @ this, "it has nothing to do with racism, it has to do with people who hate mexicans"

[ParaRevolutionary]

rofl @ this, "it has nothing to do with racism, it has to do with people who hate mexicans"

As if those are even remotely alike.

[the zizekian]

As if those are even remotely alike.

They are all about prejudices.

[o well this is ok I guess]

Money can’t have a use value if it is to have an exchange value. Last I checked, before paper money became the norm we used rare metals which most certainly have use-value.
Though, yes, that is now correct. Money has no use-value, but has an exchange value. Probably some sort of Second order simulacra or something, I do not myself have a definite answer to the topic. Though, again, a medium exchange does not necessarily need to be an object without exchange value.

[ParaRevolutionary]

They are all about prejudices.

Opposing laziness is not a prejudice.

[the zizekian]

Opposing laziness is not a prejudice.

For racists, immigrants always work either too much or too little, they are never right.

[o well this is ok I guess]

Well in the ideal society id want to work, id actually feel like i was contributing towards the betterment of the society. I just think that if im willing and able to put that effort in then so should others. Oh cool can you do my share too? I mean, if I can be without work I'd like that. It's cool, you don't have to, it would just be nice.
Why, man? Simply put, most of us despise work, even if we recognize the necessity to produce. And besides, if you're working with the purpose of merely producing what is necessary (speaking of course as to the total value of your products), then you're basically just supporting yourself: not "contributing to the betterment of society".

[the zizekian]

If one cares about the betterment of our society, he should find a cure to destructive hyperactivity.

[ParaRevolutionary]

Oh cool can you do my share too? I mean, if I can be without work I'd like that. It's cool, you don't have to, it would just be nice.
Why, man? Simply put, most of us despise work, even if we recognize the necessity to produce. And besides, if you're working with the purpose of merely producing what is necessary (speaking of course as to the total value of your products), then you're basically just supporting yourself: not "contributing to the betterment of society".

I have no opposition to helping build facilities that dont benefit me.

[the zizekian]

Last I checked, before paper money became the norm we used rare metals which most certainly have use-value.
Though, yes, that is now correct. Money has no use-value, but has an exchange value. Probably some sort of Second order simulacra or something, I do not myself have a definite answer to the topic. Though, again, a medium exchange does not necessarily need to be an object without exchange value.

Precious metals were, just like laziness, prestigious precisely because they have no clear use value.

[o well this is ok I guess]

I have no opposition to helping build facilities that dont benefit me. Assuming you must produce an equivalent of value necessary for your lifestyle, then your workday is necessarily extended. To be something done only for the benefit of all, it must be a value produced above what is necessary for your personal lifestyle. So, ergo, you're doing work so others don't have to.

[Ostrinski]

As if those are even remotely alike.Work or starve economics has everything to do with exchange. If you believe that someone should be awarded with goods based on their labor output, then you think that labor is exchangeable for goods. That also necessarily means just what OWTIOIG said a few pages back: unless a shoemaker is going to eat shoes, wear shoes as clothing, and live in shoes, then s/he's going to need to exchange his/her shoes for other goods. This necessitates a large network of commodity (items produced for exchange) industries. Do you know what we call this? Generalized commodity production, or in other words, the capitalist mode of production.

In short, if you believe that labor contains, or should contain the characteristic of exchanegability, then you understand a) labor as a commodity, and b) all goods that are to be exchanged for labor as commodities as well, which gives rise to generalized commodity production (a productive arrangement wherein all products must be exchangeable before they are usable).

In short in short, capitalist value relations.

Hatzel said it well:

It's the last I'm interested in. Does this proposal constitute a retreat to a latent (and admittedly rather loose) market? Presumably those who would cut off individuals and/or communes for doing nothing would also do so if somebody only worked for 5 minutes a week, or if a commune only released one or two items a month. This suggests that there is a 'cut-off point,' a minimum level of production/-ivity that must be met, which implies a certain correspondence between 'giving' and 'receiving.' For me, this seems like a tacit barter market, a system wherein one must bring an adequate offer to the table in order to participate in the exchange, and the adequacy of the offer would be judged according to the state of the economy at that time, questions of supply and demand, all the stuff that influences any other market.What you believe in is called mutualism, and is a restrictable ideology.

[the zizekian]

Since natural resources are limited, we can consider lazy persons as making a sacrifice so that workaholics can work more.

[o well this is ok I guess]

Precious metals were, just like laziness, prestigious precisely because they have no clear use value. Use-value is itself not exactly clear on most commodities anways, and this is most painfully obvious with the plethora of goods which economically support themselves in the same way precious metals do. But such is a digression, and for the moment I'd prefer we assume use-values to taken at face value, for the purpose of simplification. Unless you'd rather we go into it.

[the zizekian]

Use-value is itself not exactly clear on most commodities anways, and this is most painfully obvious with the plethora of goods which economically support themselves in the same way precious metals do. But such is a digression, and for the moment I'd prefer we assume use-values to taken at face value, for the purpose of simplification. Unless you'd rather we go into it.

The face value of something is always pure vanity. You will never see the face of a hard worker on money, for instance.

[o well this is ok I guess]

The face value of something is always pure vanity. You will never see the face of a hard worker on money, for instance. I have not said otherwise. After all, the vast majority of our total productive capacity is put towards "pure vanity" in that it is put towards the production of commodities who's only purpose is as objects of vanity. I have simply suggested we do so for the sake of simplicity.

[Revolution starts with U]

Why should we praise people who merely leech off of the worker?

So... fuck children and old people?
Children have the ability to work. Are you suggesting their will be forced labor... even forced CHILD labor under communism?!

Priorities comrade.


Strategic reserves in regards to surplus of any kind. As far as food goes if it cant be stored then it would be distributed to the contributing people, like i said.

So you're telling me communism is not a market-less society of free exchange sans money and markets? "Free exchange" implies that nobody is restricted. Yet you are suggesting that children and others should be restricted from consumption.


Well in the ideal society id want to work, id actually feel like i was contributing towards the betterment of the society. I just think that if im willing and able to put that effort in then so should others.

1. We're not here to create "ideal" societies.

2. Should? Perhaps. Going to? Almost certainly not, for a small minority. So the question you need to ask yourself is this; am I theorizing a society that actually will exist (scientific) or that I think should exist (idealism)?


We get it; it pisses you off that you have to work. So if you have to, others should to. How about this for a revolutionary stance... NOBODY SHOULD WORK!
Sound crazy? Check this tho; work is something you do under the domination of the property system. If you're out fishing you don't call that work. If you're building a spare bedroom, you don't call that work. If you're volunteering at the soup kitchen you don't call that work. If you're writing a novel (as a hobby) you don't call it work.
Nobody will work under higher stage communism. The more we can get rid of the need for work, the better.

If you mean to say that people are not going to be allowed to not labor.... that's redundant. Labor is intrinsic to human existence. Combing your hair is labor. Playing video games is labor. Farming corn is labor. Etc.

Simply put, there will be no 40 hour work week or 8 hour day under communism... nor a 1 hour work week or a 1 minute work day. These are the things that people do when they're subject to market domination, not what they do under a society of free exchange.


Since natural resources are limited, we can consider lazy persons as making a sacrifice so that workaholics can work more.

[the zizekian]

Only the lazy persons can really reverse the capitalist move from C-M-C to M-C-M where C is Commodity and M is Money.

[Veovis]

Laziness is a virtue! I will proudly and unashamedly suck on government teat as long as possible. That way I'll have more time for movement work! ^_^

[the zizekian]

With work, we have made a false virtue out of a false necessity.

[Lucretia]

Yes, lazy people will be paid in communism. As long as they work the same as everyone else. :)

[ParaRevolutionary]

Assuming you must produce an equivalent of value necessary for your lifestyle, then your workday is necessarily extended. To be something done only for the benefit of all, it must be a value produced above what is necessary for your personal lifestyle. So, ergo, you're doing work so others don't have to.

Youre splitting hairs. This debate is pertaining to those who refuse to work at all.

[ParaRevolutionary]

Work or starve economics has everything to do with exchange. If you believe that someone should be awarded with goods based on their labor output, then you think that labor is exchangeable for goods. That also necessarily means just what OWTIOIG said a few pages back: unless a shoemaker is going to eat shoes, wear shoes as clothing, and live in shoes, then s/he's going to need to exchange his/her shoes for other goods. This necessitates a large network of commodity (items produced for exchange) industries. Do you know what we call this? Generalized commodity production, or in other words, the capitalist mode of production.

In short, if you believe that labor contains, or should contain the characteristic of exchanegability, then you understand a) labor as a commodity, and b) all goods that are to be exchanged for labor as commodities as well, which gives rise to generalized commodity production (a productive arrangement wherein all products must be exchangeable before they are usable).

In short in short, capitalist value relations.

Hatzel said it well:
What you believe in is called mutualism, and is a restrictable ideology.

Like i said, it always comes back to restricting or banning someone.

[ParaRevolutionary]

So... fuck children and old people?
Children have the ability to work. Are you suggesting their will be forced labor... even forced CHILD labor under communism?!

Priorities comrade.

Did i say that, no.




So you're telling me communism is not a market-less society of free exchange sans money and markets? "Free exchange" implies that nobody is restricted. Yet you are suggesting that children and others should be restricted from consumption.

Again, i never said that.



1. We're not here to create "ideal" societies.

2. Should? Perhaps. Going to? Almost certainly not, for a small minority. So the question you need to ask yourself is this; am I theorizing a society that actually will exist (scientific) or that I think should exist (idealism)?


We get it; it pisses you off that you have to work. So if you have to, others should to. How about this for a revolutionary stance... NOBODY SHOULD WORK!
Sound crazy? Check this tho; work is something you do under the domination of the property system. If you're out fishing you don't call that work. If you're building a spare bedroom, you don't call that work. If you're volunteering at the soup kitchen you don't call that work. If you're writing a novel (as a hobby) you don't call it work.
Nobody will work under higher stage communism. The more we can get rid of the need for work, the better.

If you mean to say that people are not going to be allowed to not labor.... that's redundant. Labor is intrinsic to human existence. Combing your hair is labor. Playing video games is labor. Farming corn is labor. Etc.

Simply put, there will be no 40 hour work week or 8 hour day under communism... nor a 1 hour work week or a 1 minute work day. These are the things that people do when they're subject to market domination, not what they do under a society of free exchange.

Youre getting into what defines work, which is a whole other topic. I never said it pisses me off to work, i said that i bont believe the people should support those that refuse to work.

[hatzel]

How the heck did this thread manage to just plough through eight pages in what, a day or something? And still nothing's really being said...I'm just glad to have been name-dropped, that's the saving grace of this thread :thumbup:

[the zizekian]

My Capitalist 'friend' at school says that with Communism that people can do absolutely no work and still get paid the same as everybody else. Can someone help me rebuke this?

There was forced labor (re-education) camps in communism.

[Azraella]

Laziness is good because masochism is bad.


Why is masochism, bad? I'm a sadist(and masochist) and my play time is hardly related to my work. I actually love the work I do in a psych lab or in the office of the school I work at. Also, I am a bit lazy on the weekends(I watch Disney Junior with my son and never get all my housework done) :lol:

[the zizekian]

Why is masochism, bad? I'm a sadist(and masochist) and my play time is hardly related to my work. I actually love the work I do in a psych lab or in the office of the school I work at. Also, I am a bit lazy on the weekends(I watch Disney Junior with my son and never get all my housework done) :lol:

Laziness is the contrary of masochism because the lazy, and not the masochism, has understood the good way to find pleasure in pain.

[Revolution starts with U]

Did i say that, no.





Again, i never said that.

You did say that when you said communism will only provide for people who contribute, or those that cannot. Children can obviously work. So they, according to your logic, should be restricted in consumption, unless they have a job.
Notice also I said "and others." That was part of the propaganda. It was supposed to reitterate that tho you think you're just talking about 20 somethings who get high and play Halo... you're talking about 10 somethings that do it as well.

Let me ask you this: what is the minimum amount of contribution necessary under your system? 10hrs/week? 40hrs/week? 1hr/week? Do part time laborers get less? Do workaholics get more? What about an artist that spends his days passionately cranking out what to him seem masterpieces, but nobody wants them... should he starve? Should she live just above the poverty line? What exactly is different under your system than present capitalism?




Youre getting into what defines work, which is a whole other topic.

It's actually not. It IS the topic. What is the difference between work and labor, if there is one?

[Revolution starts with U]

Like i said, it always comes back to restricting or banning someone.

Let's get real here. This is the only person arguing for your restriction (and I'm pretty sure it wasn't actually argued for, just reiterrating that you may [are] upholding capitalist mode of production). Everyone else is merely discussing the topic with you.

But the point still stands; you are currently viewing labor as a commodity valued for its exchangeability (ie, as work), not necessarily its use (ie, as productivity).

[the zizekian]

My Capitalist 'friend' at school says that with Communism that people can do absolutely no work and still get paid the same as everybody else. Can someone help me rebuke this?

How can a capitalist know what is work and its appropriate reward!?

[ParaRevolutionary]

You did say that when you said communism will only provide for people who contribute, or those that cannot. Children can obviously work. So they, according to your logic, should be restricted in consumption, unless they have a job.
Notice also I said "and others." That was part of the propaganda. It was supposed to reitterate that tho you think you're just talking about 20 somethings who get high and play Halo... you're talking about 10 somethings that do it as well.

Let me ask you this: what is the minimum amount of contribution necessary under your system? 10hrs/week? 40hrs/week? 1hr/week? Do part time laborers get less? Do workaholics get more? What about an artist that spends his days passionately cranking out what to him seem masterpieces, but nobody wants them... should he starve? Should she live just above the poverty line?

You know exactly what i meant, so stop trying to twist words. Ill ask you this, what about the CEO who passionately built his business from the ground up?

[QUOTE=Revolution starts with U;2419068]It's actually not. It IS the topic. What is the difference between work and labor, if there is one?

No its not the topic. As far as the difference between work and labour, there isnt one.

[ParaRevolutionary]

Let's get real here. This is the only person arguing for your restriction (and I'm pretty sure it wasn't actually argued for, just reiterrating that you may [are] upholding capitalist mode of production). Everyone else is merely discussing the topic with you.

But the point still stands; you are currently viewing labor as a commodity valued for its exchangeability (ie, as work), not necessarily its use (ie, as productivity).

It shouldnt be called for at all unless the poster is a capitalist, fascist or troll, of which i am neither. Can a single thread travel its course without the requirement of at least one restriction or ban?

[the zizekian]

My Capitalist 'friend' at school says that with Communism that people can do absolutely no work and still get paid the same as everybody else. Can someone help me rebuke this?

Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Workers_in_the_Vineyard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Workers_in_the_Vineyard)

[Revolution starts with U]

You know exactly what i meant, so stop trying to twist words. Ill ask you this, what about the CEO who passionately built his business from the ground up?

I am not twisting your words. I am trying to extend the logic of your position.




No its not the topic. As far as the difference between work and labour, there isnt one.

So then if I spend all day leveling my WoW characters, that is labor, and I have contributed thereby making me elligible to be a part of your communism?


It shouldnt be called for at all unless the poster is a capitalist, fascist or troll, of which i am neither. Can a single thread travel its course without the requirement of at least one restriction or ban?

Well, despite that s/he (?) is trying to show you that the position you are taking is a capitalist one (at least in his/her opinion)... we can talk till we're blue in the face about what should or shouldn't happen. At some point we need to get used what is going to happen.

[Revolution starts with U]

And what about the CEO (who built from the ground up? hope that's sarcasm)?

[Ostrinski]

Like i said, it always comes back to restricting or banning someone.Yeah we restrict capitalists. So are you going to respond or what

[ParaRevolutionary]

I am not twisting your words. I am trying to extend the logic of your position.

You know very well im not referring to children.


So then if I spend all day leveling my WoW characters, that is labor, and I have contributed thereby making me elligible to be a part of your communism?

Contributed to what?



Well, despite that s/he (?) is trying to show you that the position you are taking is a capitalist one (at least in his/her opinion)... we can talk till we're blue in the face about what should or shouldn't happen. At some point we need to get used what is going to happen.

A fascist theocracy?

[ParaRevolutionary]

And what about the CEO (who built from the ground up? hope that's sarcasm)?

Hes put in the work/labour and considers it his masterpiece, hes created it. Now the CEO decides hed rather not work and simply live off the work of others.

[ParaRevolutionary]

Yeah we restrict capitalists. So are you going to respond or what

You restrict or ban anyone, regardless.

[MotherCossack]

cor blimey.... has someone been feeding this thread some wonder-grow-your garden-super-fast-potion.... i saw it growing in front of my eyes.....
well i never!!!

anyway..... in my experience [44 long years ]... it sounds corny, but there is a lot in it..... you get out of life what you put in....
i admit to having spent long periods wallowing in a self imposed inertia... and it is horrible... the less you do... the less you wanna and can do. it rapidly spirals into a hellish state of near paralysis... and you get to the point where having to do anything is terrifying....
these days i am very wary of letting go and stopping... even for a short time.... it is just too easy to sink back.... and anyhow ... once you stop.... it is hard to start again.... slow down, by all means ... but try not to actually stop.... that is my motto.
what does laziness even mean anyway?
i mean it has got to be easier to work hard at something you love and are inspired by.... than to do perhaps half the work in something you are bored by and dont enjoy.
and since ...clearly we cant all have super duper jobs and someone has to do the dirty work...surely we should take into account whether a person is motivated before we condemn them for being 'lazy'

[Railyon]

If I can't be lazy in communism it's not my revolution.

[Ostrinski]

You restrict or ban anyone, regardless.So you're not going to respond then

[ParaRevolutionary]

So you're not going to respond then

To?

[Q]

No, laziness is not good.

Laziness is an essential human trait. It is something that defines us. The whole point of social labour is to make us human and, to a more or lesser extent, different social orders make progress in that.

In any case, I suggest you read this little classic: The Right to be lazy (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lafargue/1883/lazy/) and forget your silly and backward workerist attitude of poverty-socialism (that is: the attitude of "those who do not work, shall not eat" which is such a big mantra under capitalism).

[o well this is ok I guess]

Youre splitting hairs. This debate is pertaining to those who refuse to work at all. Well assuming you're willing to contribute all this charity work for the equivalent value of a mans lifetime, then certainly you do just that: work so another does not have to.
And so, the man who will refuse to work will have the joy of not working, thanks to your workaholicism!

[ParaRevolutionary]

Laziness is an essential human trait. It is something that defines us. The whole point of social labour is to make us human and, to a more or lesser extent, different social orders make progress in that.

In any case, I suggest you read this little classic: The Right to be lazy (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lafargue/1883/lazy/) and forget your silly and backward workerist attitude of poverty-socialism (that is: the attitude of "those who do not work, shall not eat" which is such a big mantra under capitalism).

We all sit here and rail against CEOs who live off of the workers labour, however that is not the case when it comes to those within our own ranks that wish to do the same.

[ParaRevolutionary]

Well assuming you're willing to contribute all this charity work for the equivalent value of a mans lifetime, then certainly you do just that: work so another does not have to.
And so, the man who will refuse to work will have the joy of not working, thanks to your workaholicism!

Its not workaholicism, its work ethic.

[the zizekian]

Its not workaholicism, its work ethic.

A work ethics is good for slaves; a wealth ethics is good for communists (and Protestants).

[Revolution starts with U]

You know very well im not referring to children.

Why not? What's the difference? Children are able bodied.



Contributed to what?

To the ability of WoW programmers to work and thereby consume. I have labored, if there is no difference between work and labor (which could include work and productive leisure).


A fascist theocracy?
That's doubtful. It doesn't serve a purpose anymore.

[Revolution starts with U]

Hes put in the work/labour and considers it his masterpiece, hes created it. Now the CEO decides hed rather not work and simply live off the work of others.

What work? Are you suggesting he really "built it from the ground up" by himself?

The difference is that the indigent doesn't maintain a position of dominance that a bourgiousie does.

[Revolution starts with U]

Its not workaholicism, its work ethic.

That's the same thing friend. You're essentially labor for labor's sake, ie making it a commodity. You're exchanging your labor for goods, ie market economics.

[Ostrinski]

To?me
Work or starve economics has everything to do with exchange. If you believe that someone should be awarded with goods based on their labor output, then you think that labor is exchangeable for goods. That also necessarily means just what OWTIOIG said a few pages back: unless a shoemaker is going to eat shoes, wear shoes as clothing, and live in shoes, then s/he's going to need to exchange his/her shoes for other goods. This necessitates a large network of commodity (items produced for exchange) industries. Do you know what we call this? Generalized commodity production, or in other words, the capitalist mode of production.

In short, if you believe that labor contains, or should contain the characteristic of exchanegability, then you understand a) labor as a commodity, and b) all goods that are to be exchanged for labor as commodities as well, which gives rise to generalized commodity production (a productive arrangement wherein all products must be exchangeable before they are usable).

In short in short, capitalist value relations.

[Ostrinski]

Folks we've all said the same thing over and over it's basically like talking to the people on a television screen

[the zizekian]

My Capitalist 'friend' at school says that with Communism that people can do absolutely no work and still get paid the same as everybody else. Can someone help me rebuke 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?


http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+6%3A26&version=NIV (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+6%3A26&version=NIV)

[Bostana]

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?

Let's take it easy with that book

[the zizekian]

Let's take it easy with that book

I don’t want a revolution without a revolution.

[Bostana]

I don’t want a revolution without a revolution.

What does the revolution have to do with the Bible?

[the zizekian]

What does the revolution have to do with the Bible?

Christianity is an ongoing (communist) revolution.

[ParaRevolutionary]

me

Ive addressed that already.

[Bostana]

Christianity is an ongoing (communist) revolution.

I'm sorry I must of missed all the years the Protestant and Catholic Church called us the work of Satan

[Avocado]

I suppose those who want to be parasitic in a future communist world can always form a group and become capitalists :p

[Ostrinski]

Ive addressed that already.Could you link me to it, I can't seem to find it

[the zizekian]

I'm sorry I must of missed all the years the Protestant and Catholic Church called us the work of Satan

The institutions and the movement should not be confused: Christianity is a communist movement so traumatic that institutions desperately try to stifle it.

[Bostana]

The institutions and the movement should not be confused: Christianity is a communist movement so traumatic that institutions desperately try to stifle it.

Sure it is
:laugh:

[the zizekian]

Sure it is
:laugh:

Zizek said: I cannot but recall here, the wonderful moment, I don’t know if it really happened, the legend says it did, when, you know, when Napoleon humiliated the pope, forcing him to crown him and then even taking the crown from him, and then pope told to Napoleon something very nice, he told him, pope told Napoleon, “I know what you are trying, you are trying to destroy Christianity, but sorry to tell you, you will fail. We, the Church are trying this for two thousand years and we failed.” :laugh:


http://www.nypl.org/sites/default/files/av/transcripts/LIVEZizekGod_11.9TranscriptQUERIES.pdf (http://www.nypl.org/sites/default/files/av/transcripts/LIVEZizekGod_11.9TranscriptQUERIES.pdf)

[Geiseric]

Haven't you heard of the inquisition? And the Crusades? And the ongoing wars on the muslim world from christian countries?

[the zizekian]

My Capitalist 'friend' at school says that with Communism that people can do absolutely no work and still get paid the same as everybody else. Can someone help me rebuke this?

Communism comes out of a revolution and, in a revolution, there is an equalitarian spirit.

[I <3 short shorts]

No one is paid in communism, it is a non monetary system.

People recieve according to their need and work according to their ability.

Also, I don't know if you noticed but lazy people get paid under capitalism, they are the one percent who do nothing but own everything.

[Brosip Tito]

Okay, so, let's say approximately 10% of American's are unemployed.

This means that 90%, of non-retirees (retirees aren't lazy, cause they worked to retire), are certainly not lazy, they work!

Of these 10%, certainly not all of them are unemployed due to laziness, so let's give laziness the benefit of the doubt and say that 5% of all unemployed, are such, because they do not want to work at anything (be it at a gas station, fast food, or to work at the job of their dreams).

This 5% is "lazy", for what reason? Certainly many of them must be disenchanted by the system, and believe that live would be no better if they worked, so why do it? Could it be those who cannot afford to go to college, and work at something they want? If so, how does that make them lazy? What if they have children, and work is not an option, because they have to raise these kids, certainly raising kids as a poor mother/father/family is not lazy!?

So these leaves very small percentage, of the unemployed, who are "lazy".

Who are these likely to be? They are those who choose not to work because they are the children and heirs of millionaires and billionaires.

Wait, what about those millionaires and billionaires themselves? They just sit around throwing there money at shit. Signing off on ideas, and exploiting labour. They are lazy too.

Fuck the idiotic canard of "lazy" poor and working class. The Bourgeoisie are lazy.

[Lanky Wanker]

You've already got enough good answers here, so I'd like to suggest maybe pointing out the contradiction in your friend's argument. You could start off by mentioning the Queen of England for example, or maybe all those people who win the lottery and never have to work another day of their lives... OOH -- or maybe those wealthy business owners who have the horribly exhausting job of deciding where to invest millions/billions of dollars (all generated by their workers, of course). Under capitalism, "hard work" doesn't always earn the big bucks.

"Work hard and start a business, and someday YOU will be able to live off other people's labour!"

My dad owns a business and has mostly worked by himself, but he had a hard-working guy there some years ago when he was seeing his secret girlfriend and her family all the time. He'd go off to be with them and leave this guy to do all the work in the garage, then obviously take the bigger share of the business' income. Besides the guy losing his job, I'm kinda glad his business fucked up when it did.

[Buttress]

First you must define lazy. Are people lazy "just cause" or does something cause them to be lazy? Would people prefer not to do anything productive with their time, or are people simply disillusioned or neglected by the system?

People that refuse to work under communism will still get all the basic necessities to live their lives, but refusing to work is a symptom of something deeper. A problem of motivation, work autonomy, alienation. These problems will need to be investigated and resolved, laziness will not go away through force as there is always underlying cause.

[Lanky Wanker]

First you must define lazy. Are people lazy "just cause" or does something cause them to be lazy? Would people prefer not to do anything productive with their time, or are people simply disillusioned or neglected by the system?

People that refuse to work under communism will still get all the basic necessities to live their lives, but refusing to work is a symptom of something deeper. A problem of motivation, work autonomy, alienation. These problems will need to be investigated and resolved, laziness will not go away through force as there is always underlying cause.

You said it all. I can relate to this myself at the moment as well.

[ParaRevolutionary]

First you must define lazy. Are people lazy "just cause" or does something cause them to be lazy? Would people prefer not to do anything productive with their time, or are people simply disillusioned or neglected by the system?

People that refuse to work under communism will still get all the basic necessities to live their lives, but refusing to work is a symptom of something deeper. A problem of motivation, work autonomy, alienation. These problems will need to be investigated and resolved, laziness will not go away through force as there is always underlying cause.

No, its not a sympton of something deeper. I understand that children are children, the elderly are elderly, the disabled are disabled, however im referring to those who refuse to work simply because what they need is already provided.

[Revolution starts with U]

No, its not a sympton of something deeper. I understand that children are children, the elderly are elderly, the disabled are disabled, however im referring to those who refuse to work simply because what they need is already provided.

But why work any more than that?! If everyone's needs and wants are provided... why would we engage in production for production's sake?!

And again, what if I just sit around making paper mache? Is that "work?" Am I now entitled to the fruits of production?

[ParaRevolutionary]

But why work any more than that?! If everyone's needs and wants are provided... why would we engage in production for production's sake?!

And again, what if I just sit around making paper mache? Is that "work?" Am I now entitled to the fruits of production?

Things will need to be built and maintained.

[the zizekian]

Things will need to be built and maintained.

A work is precisely a durable thing.

[Thirsty Crow]

My Capitalist 'friend' at school says that with Communism that people can do absolutely no work and still get paid the same as everybody else. Can someone help me rebuke this?
This implies the existence of money in a classless, stateless world society, which is false since communists postulate the abolition of money as well as the formern (class division, the market and the state).

If your friend wished to claim that people might freely consume the products while doing no work, then sure, this is a possibility when we consider the vague outlines of a possible future society. But the issue is not whether there is a logical possibility, but rather that concrete mechanisms for preventing the realization of this possibility can be developed.
For instance, through upbringing and education children might come to understand that the communist society depends on labour as any society, but what is more important than this basic work ethic is that automation and increased productivity potentially lead to decreasing work hours in relation to one individual's performed labour. It's very much safe to assume that the 8 hour working day will become a matter of past. Couple that with possibilities for social pressure on people who don't want to put in their meager few hours of work effort, and above all else, the fact that work itself might be reorganized so that workers don't have to pay the toll of this drudgery and conflict at the workplace - and the so called argument of laziness vanishes.

[the zizekian]

My Capitalist 'friend' at school says that with Communism that people can do absolutely no work and still get paid the same as everybody else. Can someone help me rebuke this?

Work as an endless and meaningless activity comes from capitalism’s spite towards work as durable creations.

[Revolution starts with U]

Things will need to be built and maintained.

Yes, and if all that is done, and yet I still have no work necessary... are you going to force me to dig and then fill holes in the ground?

[the zizekian]

My Capitalist 'friend' at school says that with Communism that people can do absolutely no work and still get paid the same as everybody else. Can someone help me rebuke this?

In pre-capitalist societies, there was no concept of work whatsoever.

[ParaRevolutionary]

Yes, and if all that is done, and yet I still have no work necessary... are you going to force me to dig and then fill holes in the ground?

There will always be work to do. If there happens to be no work to do there is no work to refuse to do, is there?

[the zizekian]

There will always be work to do. If there happens to be no work to do there is no work to refuse to do, is there?

In the class struggle, capitalists invent useless work to control the masses.

[Revolution starts with U]

There will always be work to do. If there happens to be no work to do there is no work to refuse to do, is there?

So basically work for work's sake?

(EDIT: note that by "not working" I am not saying do nothing, even tho I still think people should have that right if it is their chosen direction in life... but nobody is going to choose that because it's impossible)

[the zizekian]

My Capitalist 'friend' at school says that with Communism that people can do absolutely no work and still get paid the same as everybody else. Can someone help me rebuke this?

How about: “with Communism people can do absolutely all the work and still insist not to get paid anything.”

[ParaRevolutionary]

So basically work for work's sake?

(EDIT: note that by "not working" I am not saying do nothing, even tho I still think people should have that right if it is their chosen direction in life... but nobody is going to choose that because it's impossible)

No, there will always be work to do, ie. buildings built, repaired and maintained, harvests, etc. Obviously if it gets to the point where theres very little to be done, although i doubt it will, then obviously the work day would be extremely short.

[the zizekian]

No, there will always be work to do, ie. buildings built, repaired and maintained, harvests, etc. Obviously if it gets to the point where theres very little to be done, although i doubt it will, then obviously the work day would be extremely short.

Building houses and harvesting are work only in capitalist societies; in pre-capitalist societies, such activities were integrated to rituals.

[Revolution starts with U]

No, there will always be work to do, ie. buildings built, repaired and maintained, harvests, etc. Obviously if it gets to the point where theres very little to be done, although i doubt it will, then obviously the work day would be extremely short.

So after releasing all the productive capacity of labor by destroying the restricitons of capital... you still want to see the 40 hour work week?

If we can get all this done by everybody... not even everybody, just some people... working 8 hours a week, let's say, why would we still engage in work for work's sake? Wouldn't it be more prudent, at this juncture, to allow them to satisfy their own desires, ie leisure.


How is this going to function logistically? What is the punishment if someone just sits around playing guitar all day? Is he to starve to death? Has the working class not just turned labor into property which they use to dominate the class of non-laborers (like children and "lazy" people)? How are you not just setting up another class system?

[the zizekian]

So after releasing all the productive capacity of labor by destroying the restricitons of capital... you still want to see the 40 hour work week?

Communism has shown that without the restrictions of capital, there is no productive capacity.

[the zizekian]

Communism has shown that without the restrictions of capital, there is no productive capacity.


In this line of thought, Zizek wrote:

Marx perceived how capitalism unleashed the breath-taking dynamics of self-enhancing productivity - see his fascinated descriptions of how, in capitalism, "all things solid melt into thin air," of how capitalism is the greatest revolutionizer in the entire history of humanity; on the other hand, he also clearly perceived how this capitalist dynamics is propelled by its own inner obstacle or antagonism - the ultimate limit of capitalism (of the capitalist self-propelling productivity) is the Capital itself, i.e. the capitalist incessant development and revolutionizing of its own material conditions, the mad dance of its unconditional spiral of productivity, is ultimately nothing but a desperate flight forward to escape its own debilitating inherent contradiction. Marx's fundamental mistake was to conclude, from these insights, that a new, higher social order (Communism) is possible, an order that would not only maintain, but even raise to a higher degree and effectively fully release the potential of the self-increasing spiral of productivity which, in capitalism, on account of its inherent obstacle/contradiction, is again and again thwarted by socially destructive economic crises. In short, what Marx overlooked is that, to put it in the standard Derridean terms, this inherent obstacle/antagonism as the "condition of impossibility" of the full deployment of the productive forces is simultaneously its "condition of possibility": if we abolish the obstacle, the inherent contradiction of capitalism, we do not get the fully unleashed drive to productivity finally delivered of its impediment, but we lose precisely this productivity that seemed to be generated and simultaneously thwarted by capitalism - if we take away the obstacle, the very potential thwarted by this obstacle dissipates...

http://www.lacan.com/zizliberal2.htm (http://www.lacan.com/zizliberal2.htm)

[ParaRevolutionary]

So after releasing all the productive capacity of labor by destroying the restricitons of capital... you still want to see the 40 hour work week?

If we can get all this done by everybody... not even everybody, just some people... working 8 hours a week, let's say, why would we still engage in work for work's sake? Wouldn't it be more prudent, at this juncture, to allow them to satisfy their own desires, ie leisure.


How is this going to function logistically? What is the punishment if someone just sits around playing guitar all day? Is he to starve to death? Has the working class not just turned labor into property which they use to dominate the class of non-laborers (like children and "lazy" people)? How are you not just setting up another class system?

No one said anything about working for works sake.

[Anderson]

No

And the social progress to communism will mean education will transform humans and create a new man. Being lazy would be a trait which humans would inherently dislike.

ON the other hand there are so many lazy people now who get paid regardless, and the system generates so many lazy people on a continual basis. How hard do you think the rich class works compared to the working class?

[the zizekian]

No one said anything about working for works sake.

One has to be very desperate to repeat “there will always be work to be done”.

[Revolution starts with U]

No one said anything about working for works sake.

NOTE: beat to the punch :lol:

You did when you said "there will always be work to be done."

[the zizekian]

My Capitalist 'friend' at school says that with Communism that people can do absolutely no work and still get paid the same as everybody else. Can someone help me rebuke this?

To hide workers exploitation, Capitalists have invented subsistence work only after benefiting workers’ surplus work.

[Tenka]

Everyone was lazy before Capitalism (except slaves and peasants, poor fellows) and automation of production will allow everyone to be lazy after Capitalism.
Relevant:

There is no doubt at all that this is the future of machinery, and just as trees grow while the country gentleman is asleep, so while Humanity will be amusing itself, or enjoying cultivated leisure – which, and not labour, is the aim of man – or making beautiful things, or reading beautiful things, or simply contemplating the world with admiration and delight, machinery will be doing all the necessary and unpleasant work. The fact is, that civilisation requires slaves. The Greeks were quite right there. Unless there are slaves to do the ugly, horrible, uninteresting work, culture and contemplation become almost impossible. Human slavery is wrong, insecure, and demoralising. On mechanical slavery, on the slavery of the machine, the future of the world depends. And when scientific men are no longer called upon to go down to a depressing East End and distribute bad cocoa and worse blankets to starving people, they will have delightful leisure in which to devise wonderful and marvellous things for their own joy and the joy of everyone else. There will be great storages of force for every city, and for every house if required, and this force man will convert into heat, light, or motion, according to his needs. Is this Utopian? A map of the world that does not include Utopia is not worth even glancing at, for it leaves out the one country at which Humanity is always landing. And when Humanity lands there, it looks out, and, seeing a better country, sets sail. Progress is the realisation of Utopias. - Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man Under Socialism

[Stadtsmasher]

My Capitalist 'friend' at school says that with Communism that people can do absolutely no work and still get paid the same as everybody else. Can someone help me rebuke this?

The idea that people don't want to do anything and are "natually lazy" is what you want to argue against. People are not naturally lazy; they are creative and dynamic by nature. We dislike work when we feel alienated from the process and fruits of that work (i.e., in capitalism).

When workers truly control their own destiny they will feel the urge to work, because that is what is natural. As with posting on RevLeft - nobody pays us to do this but we do it because we love it. Same for all work, when we feel in control of the process and outcome, and are valued as workers, allowing us to work with dignity.

[ParaRevolutionary]

NOTE: beat to the punch :lol:

You did when you said "there will always be work to be done."

How does that imply that one will work for works sake?

[the zizekian]

How does that imply that one will work for works sake?

Assuming that there always be X… implies a readiness to go to the end for X.

[Grayshot]

I could not have possibly read this entire thread, but I did get through the first 8 or 9 pages. I'm trying to look at both sides of this argument. I have a question here:

If there are, say, 100 hours of 'necessary labor' (not going into HOW we decide what labor is necessary or how we know how much of it there is) that need to be done for society to support itself, and there are 10 people who are fit to work (they meet certain requirements again determined by some unknown process), should each person not contribute 10 hours of work?

And if it turns out (discovered during production) that only 75 hours are necessary, THEN we say "Okay, you don't have to work now".

[Revolution starts with U]

I could not have possibly read this entire thread, but I did get through the first 8 or 9 pages. I'm trying to look at both sides of this argument. I have a question here:

If there are, say, 100 hours of 'necessary labor' (not going into HOW we decide what labor is necessary or how we know how much of it there is) that need to be done for society to support itself, and there are 10 people who are fit to work (they meet certain requirements again determined by some unknown process), should each person not contribute 10 hours of work?

And if it turns out (discovered during production) that only 75 hours are necessary, THEN we say "Okay, you don't have to work now".

Should they? Probably, to be fair. That's not the question at all. Are you going to starve them? Due to their lack of work are they now outcasted, relying solely upon the charity of others for their survival? If this is so it means labor is now a form of money. The market still exists. And their is a large group of people in a position of subjugation; a class dominated.

Look, this is probably a large issue the Revolution will have to go through in its early stages, part of the dialectic between producer control and the consumer sector. Keep in mind that taking this position is, although, in support of a market and class division.

[the zizekian]

If there are, say, 100 hours of 'necessary labor' (not going into HOW we decide what labor is necessary or how we know how much of it there is) that need to be done for society to support itself, and there are 10 people who are fit to work (they meet certain requirements again determined by some unknown process), should each person not contribute 10 hours of work?

No! Economy is about selecting the most productive to do the job and, if there is still work to be done, we select the second most productive…

Capitalism develops in reaction to an economic system (potlatch) where the most agile were doing all the work and get too much prestige as a reward.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

'Those who don't work, don't eat'

Tell him under socialism everyone will have to work, and there will be no such thing as current parasites at the top who leach off their dividends and interest. And those at the bottom who lay around collecting unemployment without looking for a job and food-stamps etc.

Under Socialism work is available to all and those, able bodied, will have to work to survive. No free rides or 'welfare queens' under socialism.

Cheers.

Slippery slope. What about those who can't work? What about those who can work, but are over-qualified for the roles available?

[the zizekian]

'Those who don't work, don't eat'

This slogan is appropriate only in a extreme state of emergency.

[Kotze]

What about those who can work, but are over-qualified for the roles available?We should look for ways to minimize the harm of shit work. In the short term, the given amount of shit work can be made more tolerable by broadly sharing the burden; and when more people, particularly highly intelligent ones, have it in their interest to reduce the amount of shit work in society that's also a bonus. Being over-qualified is not a useful concept.

[the zizekian]

Slippery slope. What about those who can't work? What about those who can work, but are over-qualified for the roles available?

The opening post is not about these specific situations.