What about the lazy who don't want to work?

[Loony]

...

[NewLeft]

There is no longer a proletariat under pure communism. If you mean under the dictatorship of the proletariat, then you would still need to put in your labour to get rewards.

[Hermes]

Some people would argue that those who are "lazy/apathetic" are so because of privilege and the capitalist system, and would disappear when capitalism does.

Others argue that since production wouldn't be geared towards profit, but instead towards needs/desires, even those very few who refused to work would still be able to live without major deficit towards the community.

[the zizekian]

Assuming that a pure Communist state is achieved where the Proletariat has the power in its hands.

There are obviously going to be those (as there are in any system) who do not want to put in their part, do not want to work but want to benefit from that which others have achieved.

By this I mean the loafers who put nothing into anything. People like this cannot be motivated to put in their part. Or can they?

There is always going to be the individual who is totally apathetic and unwilling to pull their weight. How would these individuals be dealt with?

I'm not talking about those who are chronically ill or have other problems which prevent them from contributing.

It's only in capitalism that there is not a big place for laziness or contemplation because work, in capitalism, is no longer defined as a durable thing (artwork,...) but as an endless and meaningless activity.

[Althusser]

Others argue that since production wouldn't be geared towards profit, but instead towards needs/desires, even those very few who refused to work would still be able to live without major deficit towards the community.

I think it is pretty common sense that there will be lazy people when "pure communism" is achieved. It's kind of like how Stalin thought homosexuality would disappear in communism because he thought it only existed because of "bourgeois decadence."

If it is understood that lazies will still be around, as you said, it probably won't effect the people all that much.

[the zizekian]

I think it is pretty common sense that there will be lazy people when "pure communism" is achieved. It's kind of like how Stalin thought homosexuality would disappear in communism because he thought it only existed because of "bourgeois decadence."

If it is understood that lazies will still be around, as you said, it probably won't effect the people all that much.

Since laziness is so good and easy to share with others, it will certainly be prevalent in communism.

[Hermes]

I think it is pretty common sense that there will be lazy people when "pure communism" is achieved. It's kind of like how Stalin thought homosexuality would disappear in communism because he thought it only existed because of "bourgeois decadence."

If it is understood that lazies will still be around, as you said, it probably won't effect the people all that much.

Well, it depends. I would find it difficult to believe that there were those who would not have any interest at all that could be geared towards helping the community.

I could, and most likely am, wrong.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Depending on your exact moment in societal development some leftist advocate that those who refuse to work will not be able to aquire/be given luxuries. Under this type of system you would still be given the neccesities to survive but nothing more "decadent." What would be defined as luxurious would largely be up to the community and the than standards of living.

[the zizekian]

Well, it depends. I would find it difficult to believe that there were those who would not have any interest at all that could be geared towards helping the community.

I could, and most likely am, wrong.

I don't see a communist society as one which needs help.

[Klaatu]

Everyone has some kind of interest. Everyone likes to do something. Usually this is something they are good at. This is what they should do. That being said, I think that laziness stems from boredom and in some cases, depression. So if we can get these people into counseling, they can get over their problems and become productive members of society.

IMHO, no one really wants to be lazy. It's too boring! :bored:

[Caj]

A system of remuneration would be established in a post-revolutionary society until the productive forces are capable of maintaining a continuous state of post-scarcity. At this point, individuals would be free to work to the best of their abilities (or not at all) and take from the collective produce in accordance with their needs. Because there would be no scarcity of necessities, "lazy" individuals would pose no problem. It's also important to keep in mind that "lazy" individuals are going to have reduced needs.

[the zizekian]

A system of remuneration would be established in a post-revolutionary society until the productive forces are capable of maintaining a continuous state of post-scarcity.

There is no way to establish such a reward system I think without recognizing the productive advantage of laziness.

[Caj]

There is no way to establish such a reward system I think without recognizing the productive advantage of laziness.

The "productive advantage of laziness"? Care to elaborate?

[Lanky Wanker]

Can we PLEASE make a thread dedicated to these sort of questions that get asked all the time? Maybe vote on some good answers selected from existing threads on various FAQs regarding communism?


Everyone has some kind of interest. Everyone likes to do something. Usually this is something they are good at. This is what they should do. That being said, I think that laziness stems from boredom and in some cases, depression. So if we can get these people into counseling, they can get over their problems and become productive members of society.

IMHO, no one really wants to be lazy. It's too boring! :bored:

What about the fat capitalist who sits in his office all day puffing cigars and drinking strong alcohol that smells like cleaning products? :D

[the zizekian]

The "productive advantage of laziness"? Care to elaborate?

Only a lazy person can really care about doing things efficiently (i.e. minimizing his efforts).

[Revolution starts with U]

What about them? If people must labor to consume, than labor has simply become a new form of money... and here again we have the market.

So, what of them?

[Art Vandelay]

I never quite understand this question. If free access is assured to all, then how will anyone be lazy? Everyone has something that they are interested in, so everyone would have a job that would no longer be viewed as a "job" to them.

[Jimmie Higgins]

What did native Americans do with lazy people? What do siblings do with a brother or sister who shares in sibling activities but never sticks around to help clean up?

Assuming the achievement of worker's rule, the reorganization of production, and the end of alienation for labor, I doubt much more than some light peer-pressure would be needed in all but the rare exception. If you're not artificially separated from how decisions are made and for what purposes, i.e. if you're not alienated, then the sense that "this isn't my job" or "someone will do it" doesn't become a factor. In capitalism since our labor-time is commodified, we resent "doing someone else's work" because in a sense we feel like we are being financially ripped off for doing for free what we only would normally do for a wage. So if you get to work and the shift before you didn't finish and created extra work, then in the logic of capitalism they are essentially "stealing" time/wages from you.

When work-hours are reduced and made more efficient and less unpleasant, and most importantly that the collective productive effort is an extension of a collective decision-making effort, then "laziness" ceases to be "theft" and becomes just "selfishness" and arguing with (or mocking) someone like a modern-day co-worker who takes up too much room in the office mini-fridge is all that I think would be needed.

So I think on one level the end of alienated labor will make people less likely to slack-off on principle (under wage-work, the more you slack-off, the more you are actually empowering yourself in a certain sense because you are doing less work for the same pay, whereas the boss wants you to work more in that time for the same pay) because the point of your labor would be to complete the task adequately (implying that you can work fast and go home if that's important to you or work slowly and leisurely over a longer time) rather than to fill in a certain required set of hours in which you no longer belong to yourself but to the demands of your job and boss. So laziness would actually not allow people in a post-alienated production form to "pull one over" because they would just be procrastinating in a sense. But also there would be less general alienation if people also had a say in how communities were run. If you had to spend a week each year doing some trash pick-up or working with a comitte for that purpose, then you probably wouldn't just toss some trash on a local street even when you weren't on trash duty, because the picking up of trash in your area wouldn't be some alien event that "happens somehow but it's not your job so who cares".

On the other hand "laziness" as a behavior, not a fetishized condition as it seems under capitalism, will continue as all human behaviors are always possible on some level. However, the social connotations of laziness will be competely different. It's human to just be tired or demoralized from time to time so the first thing is that not having a rigourous 9-5 or whatever set hours of wage-labor would mean that if someone wanted to "take a personal day" or never wanted to do any labor before noon, then they could probably work out some kind of arrangement to balance their desired leisure with the tasks they agree must be done. So "laziness" would loose it's connotation as some sort of human moral or character defect, and it would just become "not working" and if someone's leisure became problematic, then other people would probably mention to them that they don't like having to carry their weight unfairly. If it really went beyond this and someone rigorously refused to share in any of the community tasks, then maybe there'd have to be some kind of mechanism where maybe they didn't get acess to some communal services like entertainment or laundry or whatnot. I think that sort of thing might be more necessary at first while workers are trying to reorganize production and communities - but I think workers would have to figure this out at the time.

I don't believe that there is all that much "hardwired" into human attitudes and behaviors, but I think a sense of "fairness" on a small interpersonal level is actually a feature of all human interactions. So without class differences that codify a systemic "unfairness" we wouldn't need a repressive or majorly punitive method for making sure people worked - it'd be like "we're all in this together" if class interests were unified as just human interests.

[Blake's Baby]

We will all be 'lazy' in communism. We won't do things that are unnecessary and unpleasant for us, just to enrich some boss. If the ability (indeed necessity) of taking a lot of time off for ourselves isn't built in to how and why we're doing this, I don't really see the point.

[the zizekian]

Assuming that a pure Communist state is achieved where the Proletariat has the power in its hands.

There are obviously going to be those (as there are in any system) who do not want to put in their part, do not want to work but want to benefit from that which others have achieved.

By this I mean the loafers who put nothing into anything. People like this cannot be motivated to put in their part. Or can they?

There is always going to be the individual who is totally apathetic and unwilling to pull their weight. How would these individuals be dealt with?

I'm not talking about those who are chronically ill or have other problems which prevent them from contributing.

A guy judging that my communist world is worthless is a guy who should get ready to feel my wrath.

[Dumb]

If I didn't have to worry about starving, I wouldn't do a damn thing all day. Some people are just naturally lazy; I don't want to do anything.

[the zizekian]

Assuming that a pure Communist state is achieved where the Proletariat has the power in its hands.

There are obviously going to be those (as there are in any system) who do not want to put in their part, do not want to work but want to benefit from that which others have achieved.

By this I mean the loafers who put nothing into anything. People like this cannot be motivated to put in their part. Or can they?

There is always going to be the individual who is totally apathetic and unwilling to pull their weight. How would these individuals be dealt with?

I'm not talking about those who are chronically ill or have other problems which prevent them from contributing.

Let the workaholics buy out the lazy.

[Landsharks eat metal]

If I didn't have to worry about starving, I wouldn't do a damn thing all day. Some people are just naturally lazy; I don't want to do anything.
Are you sure it's not just alienation? I would say the same thing about myself, but I'm realizing more and more how alienated I am without having ever even had a job.

[the zizekian]

Assuming that a pure Communist state is achieved where the Proletariat has the power in its hands.

There are obviously going to be those (as there are in any system) who do not want to put in their part, do not want to work but want to benefit from that which others have achieved.

By this I mean the loafers who put nothing into anything. People like this cannot be motivated to put in their part. Or can they?

There is always going to be the individual who is totally apathetic and unwilling to pull their weight. How would these individuals be dealt with?

I'm not talking about those who are chronically ill or have other problems which prevent them from contributing.

Let the more lazy cure the lesser ones through starvation.

[Franz Fanonipants]

we'll all be loafers

[the zizekian]

Assuming that a pure Communist state is achieved where the Proletariat has the power in its hands.

There are obviously going to be those (as there are in any system) who do not want to put in their part, do not want to work but want to benefit from that which others have achieved.

By this I mean the loafers who put nothing into anything. People like this cannot be motivated to put in their part. Or can they?

There is always going to be the individual who is totally apathetic and unwilling to pull their weight. How would these individuals be dealt with?

I'm not talking about those who are chronically ill or have other problems which prevent them from contributing.

For a communist, it is all about lying to be lazy.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

A socialist program should be committed to eliminating work from daily life through automation. The left seems to have an almost erotic connection with the concept of work, it's really disturbing.

A communist society should have at least reduced work to a mere fraction of what it is to us now, if not eliminated it all together. If that wasn't the case I would suspect that something serious had gone wrong.

[the zizekian]

A socialist program should be committed to eliminating work from daily life through automation. The left seems to have an almost erotic connection with the concept of work, it's really disturbing.

A communist society should have at least reduced work to a mere fraction of what it is to us now, if not eliminated it all together. If that wasn't the case I would suspect that something serious had gone wrong.

Work is only a battle field for communism.

[che]

Just don't give them benifets they'll get to work because they will get hungrey. You could also make them work or just put them in jail.

[Fennec]

The Right to be Lazy (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lafargue/1883/lazy/)

[Rusty Shackleford]

Assuming that a pure Communist state is achieved where the Proletariat has the power in its hands.

There are obviously going to be those (as there are in any system) who do not want to put in their part, do not want to work but want to benefit from that which others have achieved.

By this I mean the loafers who put nothing into anything. People like this cannot be motivated to put in their part. Or can they?

There is always going to be the individual who is totally apathetic and unwilling to pull their weight. How would these individuals be dealt with?

I'm not talking about those who are chronically ill or have other problems which prevent them from contributing.
you mean like a wanna-be business owner?

[the zizekian]

you mean like a wanna-be business owner?

busy, busy,...

[Bloodwerk]

If you are given the opportunity to do something you really like, I don't see any reason why you should slack. I doubt anyone can be lazy naturally.
If you ask me for a really honest and personal answer, I'd say people that refuse to do even the simplest tasks, shouldn't expect society's support.

[the zizekian]

If you are given the opportunity to do something you really like, I don't see any reason why you should slack. I doubt anyone can be lazy naturally.
If you ask me for a really honest and personal answer, I'd say people that refuse to do even the simplest tasks, shouldn't expect society's support.

To me, it all depends on how one refuses.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I refuse to push the button to turn on the 3D printer. Mankind is doomed.

[the zizekian]

I refuse to push the button to turn on the 3D printer. Mankind is doomed.

Earth is saved.

[Revolution starts with U]

If I didn't have to worry about starving, I wouldn't do a damn thing all day. Some people are just naturally lazy; I don't want to do anything.

You certainly would not sit there in quiet meditation for the rest of your life; or maybe you would, but why would this be "unproductive" outside a capitalist framework?

You're going to do something. Really this kind of response merely provides a justification for the capitalist understanding of labor; labor for exchangeability's sake, not labor for need/want's sake.

As I said in the other thread; 13 year old children are functionally able to work. Nothing makes them different than a lazy 30 year old in that regard. Are you telling me communism will have forced child labor? If not, what's the difference?

[the zizekian]

You certainly would not sit there in quiet meditation for the rest of your life; or maybe you would, but why would this be "unproductive" outside a capitalist framework?

You're going to do something. Really this kind of response merely provides a justification for the capitalist understanding of labor; labor for exchangeability's sake, not labor for need/want's sake.

As I said in the other thread; 13 year old children are functionally able to work. Nothing makes them different than a lazy 30 year old in that regard. Are you telling me communism will have forced child labor? If not, what's the difference?

Since work has made us dumb, we cannot be good judge (for laziness).

[Revolution starts with U]

Since work has made us dumb, we cannot be good judge (for laziness).

I like you :lol:

[ed miliband]

laziness is a virtue and i'm very proud of my ability to spend days on end doing nothing in particular

[the zizekian]

laziness is a virtue and i'm very proud of my ability to spend days on end doing nothing in particular

Also, work is not even a necessity and it has succeeded to become a bogus virtue.

[Loony]

...

[ed miliband]

Maybe I'm getting it a bit wrong, but please indulge me. I know you guys have probably heard this a thousand times over. If I'm wrong, help me out.

My idea:

In order to live in society, there needs to be a form of production of some kind. Somebody needs to work in the fields, somebody needs to maintain tractors, somebody needs to teach the children, somebody needs to heal the sick. Everyone NEEDS to put in something to get something out, don't they? If I do something I do it for the good of all. If I do nothing or do something bad then it also affects my people. So whatever I do is to the benefit or the detriment of my people. This is not about who makes a quick buck, but it is everyone's moral obligation to do something.

If there were only loafers, society would stand still. There would be no production of any kind (not food, nothing) because everyone would be lazing in the sun and doing nothing all day long. And this probably couldn't last longer than a week anyway because everyone has to eat.

I'm putting in my part but you aren't. I and the rest of the members in the community are working for the good of all whilst you stare at the waves on the beach and expect to live at my and the other people's labour. I couldn't see this going on for very long. Would it?

Please be kind to me! :blushing: All answers welcome!

why you worrying yrself about how to manage capital?

[Revolution starts with U]

In order to live in society, there needs to be a form of production of some kind.
Correct.

Somebody needs to work in the fields, somebody needs to maintain tractors, somebody needs to teach the children, somebody needs to heal the sick.
Incorrect. Something, not necessarily someone must do this.

Everyone NEEDS to put in something to get something out, don't they?
How does this logically follow from the premise above? It can only if you assume work as a medium of exchange; ie money.

If I do something I do it for the good of all. If I do nothing or do something bad then it also affects my people. So whatever I do is to the benefit or the detriment of my people. This is not about who makes a quick buck, but it is everyone's moral obligation to do something.
Is it? What if there is nothing that "needs" to be done? Shall we force people to dig and fill ditches, just so they have something to do?


If there were only loafers, society would stand still.
Assuming we haven't automated everything, yes. How does it follow that "everyone" must work?

There would be no production of any kind (not food, nothing) because everyone would be lazing in the sun and doing nothing all day long.
Assuming people would actually do this. And assuming that these things are not automated.


I'm putting in my part but you aren't.
So?


I and the rest of the members in the community are working for the good of all whilst you stare at the waves on the beach and expect to live at my and the other people's labour. I couldn't see this going on for very long. Would it?

I'm no fortune teller.

Let me ask you this (I asked in my earlier post); what is it that makes a 13 year old different than a 20 year old, other than age? Either we must assume you support forced labor for children. Or we must assume you are willing to aleviate this "everyone able must contribute" clause in the special case of children. Why?

[AmericanCommie421]

If this was so, why is there not universal laziness today? As Marx and Engels so perfectly put it, "It has been objected that upon the abolition of private property, all work will cease, and universal laziness will overtake us.
According to this, bourgeois society ought long ago to have gone to the dogs through sheer idleness; for those of its members who work, acquire nothing, and those who acquire anything do not work. The whole of this objection is but another expression of the tautology: that there can no longer be any wage-labour when there is no longer any capital."- The Communist Manifesto

[Loony]

Thank you everyone for your answers!

You all make valid points. I'm not trying to criticize, just to get real people's opinions about this.

[the zizekian]

Maybe I'm getting it a bit wrong, but please indulge me. I know you guys have probably heard this a thousand times over. If I'm wrong, help me out.

My idea:

In order to live in society, there needs to be a form of production of some kind. Somebody needs to work in the fields, somebody needs to maintain tractors, somebody needs to teach the children, somebody needs to heal the sick. Everyone NEEDS to put in something to get something out, don't they? If I do something I do it for the good of all. If I do nothing or do something bad then it also affects my people. So whatever I do is to the benefit or the detriment of my people. This is not about who makes a quick buck, but it is everyone's moral obligation to do something.

If there were only loafers, society would stand still. There would be no production of any kind (not food, nothing) because everyone would be lazing in the sun and doing nothing all day long. And this probably couldn't last longer than a week anyway because everyone has to eat.

I'm putting in my part but you aren't. I and the rest of the members in the community are working for the good of all whilst you stare at the waves on the beach and expect to live at my and the other people's labour. I couldn't see this going on for very long. Would it?

Please be kind to me! :blushing: All answers welcome!

Be sure that your views here make absolutely no sense to pre-capitalist societies. Before capitalism, humans view themselves as gods’ or God’s welfare recipients.

[Blake's Baby]

...

How does this logically follow from the premise above? It can only if you assume work as a medium of exchange; ie money.

Is it? What if there is nothing that "needs" to be done? Shall we force people to dig and fill ditches, just so they have something to do?...


I think part of the problem here might be misunderstandings rather than necessarily different conceptions.

'putting something in to get something out' I think here doesn't necessarily mean 'exchange' as in 'how much work have you done for the Glorious Moustacheoed People's Democratic Collective today, Comrade Robotnik? have you fulfilled your Democratic Freedom and Moustache Health quota?'

What I think the OP is getting at is, 1-if there is work that needs doing, like producing food (or whatever), then 2-if we want the food (or whatever), wwe have to do the work, but what if the work-load 3-falls on some people more than others because 4-some people are so anti-social that they don't so anything at all, even a fair minimum?

Now, while I take your point about automation etc, I still think there will need to be a small amount of 'work' as in not terribly pleasant activity that nevertheless delivers 'social goods'.

But to be honest, I don't much care if there are some slackers because 1-the amount of work we'll all do because we 'have' to will be so much lower than it is today that the extra caused by 2-the tiny amount of people who don't want to be bothered contributing will be so small it's hardly worth bothering about.

In my opinion, anyway.

[the zizekian]

Maybe I'm getting it a bit wrong, but please indulge me. I know you guys have probably heard this a thousand times over. If I'm wrong, help me out.

My idea:

In order to live in society, there needs to be a form of production of some kind. Somebody needs to work in the fields, somebody needs to maintain tractors, somebody needs to teach the children, somebody needs to heal the sick.

In pre-capitalist society, working the field, for example, would have been considered an insult to gods whom, through their generous nature, provide more than enough to forget about such pitiful notion of "human needs". The gestures done by humans in the field were considered thankful rituals not necessary work at all.

[maskerade]

Be sure that your views here make absolutely no sense to pre-capitalist societies. Before capitalism, humans view themselves as gods’ or God’s welfare recipients.

be sure to keep in mind the racist implications of historicism. no such thing as a 'pre-capitalist' society, that would imply that all societies follow the same historical trajectory which was indeed the justification for the colonialist adventure of the 18th-20th century - 'first in the west, then elsewhere; we must keep the colonized in the waiting room until they are developed enough'. The necessity of capital to continuously accumulate is what drives (drove) its world-wide expansion, not the abstract inevitability that it would do so.

No idea what you're getting at with your second sentence, but from first glance it seems completely detached from reality as a general statement.

On topic: to think of a post-capitalist society in terms that describe the current one is not particularly conducive to understanding the form that societal transformation would take. Essentially this problem of 'laziness' is only problematic if one assumes that lazy people are born with some sort of a priori laziness, and one would be hard-pressed to demonstrate the validity of such an assumption. Thus, laziness must be exogenous rather than endemic to people. For example, I hate being told to do arbitrary tasks that train me to be more 'employable', or in fact any task that I do not see the value of. For this I am deemed lazy by the powers that be.

[Misanthrope]

Can you define lazy?

[the zizekian]

be sure to keep in mind the racist implications of historicism. no such thing as a 'pre-capitalist' society, that would imply that all societies follow the same historical trajectory which was indeed the justification for the colonialist adventure of the 18th-20th century - 'first in the west, then elsewhere; we must keep the colonized in the waiting room until they are developed enough'. The necessity of capital to continuously accumulate is what drives (drove) its world-wide expansion, not the abstract inevitability that it would do so.

No idea what you're getting at with your second sentence, but from first glance it seems completely detached from reality as a general statement.

On topic: to think of a post-capitalist society in terms that describe the current one is not particularly conducive to understanding the form that societal transformation would take. Essentially this problem of 'laziness' is only problematic if one assumes that lazy people are born with some sort of a priori laziness, and one would be hard-pressed to demonstrate the validity of such an assumption. Thus, laziness must be exogenous rather than endemic to people. For example, I hate being told to do arbitrary tasks that train me to be more 'employable', or in fact any task that I do not see the value of. For this I am deemed lazy by the powers that be.

Laziness is an illusion that (alienated) workers have to project (retroactively) on others.

[Luís Henrique]

Assuming that a pure Communist state is achieved where the Proletariat has the power in its hands.

There are obviously going to be those (as there are in any system) who do not want to put in their part, do not want to work but want to benefit from that which others have achieved.

By this I mean the loafers who put nothing into anything. People like this cannot be motivated to put in their part. Or can they?

There is always going to be the individual who is totally apathetic and unwilling to pull their weight. How would these individuals be dealt with?

I'm not talking about those who are chronically ill or have other problems which prevent them from contributing.

I think actually the problem is based in a popular fantasy.

Most of us toil eight hours a day in an environment we don't like, doing things we don't like, and that often don't even make any sence. Plus of course the time we have to suffer in public or private transportation. Then when we get home we rest, and that's when we feel closer to being actually human. Marx puts it more eloquently than I can:


The worker therefore only feels himself outside his work, and in his work feels outside himself. He feels at home when he is not working, and when he is working he does not feel at home.


As a result, therefore, man (the worker) only feels himself freely active in his animal functions – eating, drinking, procreating, or at most in his dwelling and in dressing-up, etc.; and in his human functions he no longer feels himself to be anything but an animal. What is animal becomes human and what is human becomes animal.

That drives people into the delusion that idleness is a wonderful thing, and that we should strive to be idle (even the rationale behind overworking ourselves is based in such delusion: we should work hard, and irrationally, so much that we can at certain point be able to live without having to work anymore). It is even a dangerous delusion; I have seen people who retired from work under the idea that doing nothing would be like living a marvelous dream - and obviously were in deep depression within a year of their retirement. Some indeed die of that.

The fact however is that the enormous majority of people are happy when doing things, creating things, transforming things. If they retire, or are in vacations, they find other, more sactisfacting things to do. They cook, or they learn Latin, or take care of their grandchildren or their garden, or create computer programs, or write their memories, or whatever. Very few people are actually happy in complete idleness. These are, I think, few enough not to pose an actual problem, especially in a society that relies on dead labour more than in living labour.

And so I think that it is a matter of making what is human, human, and what is animal, animal.

Which is a good reason that we should be socialists and oppose capitalism, as well.

Luís Henrique

[the zizekian]

Assuming that a pure Communist state is achieved where the Proletariat has the power in its hands.

There are obviously going to be those (as there are in any system) who do not want to put in their part, do not want to work but want to benefit from that which others have achieved.

By this I mean the loafers who put nothing into anything. People like this cannot be motivated to put in their part. Or can they?

There is always going to be the individual who is totally apathetic and unwilling to pull their weight. How would these individuals be dealt with?

I'm not talking about those who are chronically ill or have other problems which prevent them from contributing.

Just like those obsessed by trolls are trolls themselves, those obsessed by laziness are intellectually lazy.