Lazy people in socialism/communism

[Philosophos]

I've heard that there were some lazy people in socialist countries because "there was not the option of getting more money or evolve in the society".

I wanted to ask if this is true (if there were lots of them) and what was the law/things they were doing for these people.

Also I'd like to highlight that I'm not talking about people with disabilities or old people or kids (for crying out loud).

[Lowtech]

They weren't lazy people, however they didn't meet stringent productivity levels and required work hours.....they were treated harshly because they were under totalitarian rule designed by lenin....

Read http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2000s/2001/no-1169-december-2001/marx-and-lenins-views-contrasted

Money as an incentive is bogus as humans don't require money to understand the merit of their deeds

Also, the real incentive is the impulse to survive and altruism, money and conditioned dependence on a market is like reins in a horses mouth, to steer us as the rich see fit

[Questionable]

They weren't lazy people, however they didn't meet stringent productivity levels and required work hours.....they were treated harshly because they were under totalitarian rule designed by lenin....

Read http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2000s/2001/no-1169-december-2001/marx-and-lenins-views-contrasted

Money as an incentive is bogus as humans don't require money to understand the merit of their deeds

Also, the real incentive is the impulse to survive and altruism, money and conditioned dependence on a market is like reins in a horses mouth, to steer us as the rich see fit

The situation of Russia under Lenin and the Communist Party was far more complex than is able to summed up by bourgeois buzz-words such "totalitarian."

I do not know much about laws in socialist countries, perhaps Ismail would be of better help here, but OP, please do not trust that article. It is full of inaccuracies and downright embellishments in regards to the Bolsheviks and the October Revolution.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

I've heard that there were some lazy people in socialist countries because "there was not the option of getting more money or evolve in the society".

There is not much truth in this accusation, actually. In fact, you could say this is true for many capitalist nations (such as the U.S.) as well.


I wanted to ask if this is true (if there were lots of them) and what was the law/things they were doing for these people.

Also I'd like to highlight that I'm not talking about people with disabilities or old people or kids (for crying out loud).

You might want to check out the book Blackshirts and Reds by Michael Parenti which has a section about this subject.

[m1omfg]

People started being a bit lazy in the 1980s due to the fact that too many people were assigned to one job so the others had nothing to do. For example in Soviet Ukraine there was a receptionist on every floor in a hotel. But do not confuse "a bit lazy" with not working at all - people were required to have a job by law and the state was required to provide jobs to everybody. Some people were hardworking, some were kind of slackers but everybody had productive employment except for political dissidents. In free market capitalism, unemployment is an everyday fact, in "authoritarian socialist" countries unemployment was something unthinkable by the majority of people, something that only political dissidents had to endure.

Unfortunately, some people abused the fact that it was practically illegal to ever fire people and let other people work harded to do the job for them. You could get to prison if you didn't go to work at all, but unfortunately, as long as you got to work, it was not really guarded if you actually worked enough or let other people do the work for you. Plus, the shortages in the late 1980s made this problem worse as people were lazy to work when the shops were empty of all goods except basic foodstuffs.

[Teddyjer Ilyich Otterman]

Forgive me if I'm not entirely educated on this topic, but I had a couple thoughts...

Wouldn't it be possible to still get promotions to jobs that you might find a better fit for you, if you are an exceptionally hard worker? The promise of something you'd like to do more could be a good motivator. The flip side would be demotion to a job you like less in the case of laziness. Money isn't the only thing that keeps people working hard. I've found most people will do put forth at least a satisfactory amount of effort in whatever job they are in (think about people in the Amerika who work in jobs they hate...most of them still do a pretty good job). Plus, in most models I've seen proposed, there are different levels of income, usually with a low proportion (e.g., 10 to 1) of the lowest income to the highest. The incentive of promotion on the one side, demotion on the other, and a small amount of more or less income would motivate the "outliers" (lets say, the top and bottom 10% in terms of productivity, attentiveness, skill, punctuality, reliability, etc.), and most people would do a good enough job naturally, as they do now.

[human strike]

People were lazy throughout, just as there has always been laziness under all forms of capitalism, including "socialism", for what should be obvious reasons. The Stakhanovites were the exceptions. As long as there has been alienation there has been laziness and we should praise that.

[maskerade]

people aren't atoms that exist separate from other humans around them; there is always going to be societal pressure to contribute positively to one's community, and as others have stated, money isn't an integral component for motivation, things like autonomy and mastery of one's own labour are much more important.

That being said, I think the very word 'laziness' is extremely problematic. it's dismissive of societal relations and blames shortcomings on the purposeful agency of individuals ("they don't want to work, they just want to get benefits") rather than on social and economic structures. In the 'socialist states' that existed there was still a separation between workers and the state and therefore the alienating relationship that arises from centralized ownership of the productive features of society was never overcome.

For example, I don't like being told what to do, and thus I am deemed to be lazy, even though I consider the tasks I'm told to do to be arbitrary and non-inspiring. If I lived in a free society (read: socialist) not only would I have more time to focus on things that are of a personal interest to me, but I would also have an increased say in the management of my community and workplace. In such a society, what would I gain from not participating and contributing? (as opposed to this society, where the question is 'what do i gain from participating and contributing?' with the answer being 'nothing').

Either way i don't consider the nominal socialist states to have been socialist, so to answer your question i'd say that any laziness in those countries would be symptomatic of those particular social relations rather than a flaw with the elusive and seemingly unattainable 'real socialism'.

[Generalist]

It's all ideology. 'Work', 'lazy', categories for some kind of Puritan, capitalist ideology. Who defines lazy? I am sure we are all lazy compared to the robot. When is work a good thing, a virtue? Especially, when you work for the capitalists. Communism is not a beehive or an ant colony, it is about human freedom, to work and not to work. Only in the most advanced capitalist countries we have a fetish for work.

[Philosophos]

It's all ideology. 'Work', 'lazy', categories for some kind of Puritan, capitalist ideology. Who defines lazy? I am sure we are all lazy compared to the robot. When is work a good thing, a virtue? Especially, when you work for the capitalists. Communism is not a beehive or an ant colony, it is about human freedom, to work and not to work. Only in the most advanced capitalist countries we have a fetish for work.

Look I'm not talking about working for 7 hours instead of 8 or 10 or 12. That's the normal thing and we should embrace that not the extra hours of work. I was talking about people who just stay in bed all day and do nothing or for the ones who prefer to go to a cafe because work is for "loosers". That's a lazy person if you ask me or a fascist or a capitalo or a king's fellow :)

[Streetlight]

It's all ideology. 'Work', 'lazy', categories for some kind of Puritan, capitalist ideology. Who defines lazy? I am sure we are all lazy compared to the robot. When is work a good thing, a virtue? Especially, when you work for the capitalists. Communism is not a beehive or an ant colony, it is about human freedom, to work and not to work. Only in the most advanced capitalist countries we have a fetish for work.

Work is a good thing when you enjoy contributing/producing/serving/mastering your craft, trait, and most importantly, your mind (through continuous learning). Of course there are shitty jobs, but someone has to do it, why not just drudge through them while continuing an education/apprenticeship to learn a craft you enjoy doing; or, making people contribute to society that choose to reap the benefits while able bodily choosing against work? Granted of course, if proper work hours and access to free education, healthcare, a proper living environment, food, and entertainment were involved, I believe all humans would more readily accept contributing to society in one way or another, rather than be "lazy" leeches. Happy workers (most everyone is able to be a worker) lead to a more efficient society.

[human strike]

Look I'm not talking about working for 7 hours instead of 8 or 10 or 12. That's the normal thing and we should embrace that not the extra hours of work. I was talking about people who just stay in bed all day and do nothing or for the ones who prefer to go to a cafe because work is for "loosers". That's a lazy person if you ask me or a fascist or a capitalo or a king's fellow :)

Alienated labour is for losers.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Work is for losers, when the revolution comes I'm going to quit my job and smoke pot for the rest of my life.

[RedHammer]

I'm in favor of a "you don't work, you don't eat" policy.

I'm surprised to see so many people defending the idea that an individual should be able to choose not to work. No. Everybody has to work. Everybody has to contribute.

The work will vary from person to person. We must try, as much as possible, to ensure that individuals are able to perform the jobs that they enjoy; that they have an interest in.

I think that we can do this by dividing work into two categories: jobs, and careers. By this I simply mean jobs that nobody really wants to do but somebody has to do, and jobs that people are actually interested in.

Let's face it: nobody enjoys being a janitor or a garbage man. But these jobs are important. Therefore, in a proper socialist society, every capable individual should be required to work at these jobs to some extent. At the same time, they should have the resources (e.g. education) to move to a career they enjoy.

Things like theater, dance, music, and the like, should not be considered jobs at all. Not because they aren't important - they certainly are - but they should be considered artistic endeavors to which any capable or eager individual can apply during periods of "leisure". The people who do these things, then, will be people who love to do them

[No_Leaders]

The thing is how do you define work? Work takes a totally different meaning under socialism. You contribute to society the best way you can, if your a doctor you're helping people, if you work in a factory and enjoy doing assembly or the mechanical work, that's how you contribute in production, if you enjoy playing music you're contributing back using the arts. Look at a socialist society like a library in current society. You're able to go into a library borrow as many books as you want, no one says "hey you're being greedy" you're need is based on what you feel you need to read. If you feel like contributing back to the library you can volunteer or donate books back. Of course there will be some jobs in society that need to be done i.e. sewage treatment, but those can be jobs that are rotated on a regular basis that way it's fair, besides those are all sanitary things i don't think people will mind knowing their getting clean water for their community and making sure it's not a hazard and such.

[Le Socialiste]

I'm in favor of a "you don't work, you don't eat" policy.

Sounds an awful lot like the system we have now...

[Nomad]

If people who voluntarily choose not to contribute anything still receive benefits then there will be mass shortages of supplies and manpower. Socialism is a worker's system, every day you choose to sit on your ass, is a day where your buddy is picking up your slack. We need a dedicated and mature work force (or should I just say population?) to ensure progressive growth and that the necessary services and supplies are provided. Cooperative management of production (centrally planned or libertarian) means ethical work hours and demands and frankly more productivity depending on the intelligence of the nation implementing the system. The harsh reality is that if you're choosing not to contribute of your own free will, it's your right to do so. But if you feel entitled without contributing, you have to live with the fact that you're being a drain on everyone around you and if everyone were like you, there'd be no societal structure at all. If you can live with that.. then sure. Doesn't mean you should go to prison, but the clock should definitely be ticking on you receiving free shit. You have to be practical about what it means for society.

[human strike]

My ideal view of communism as always been as a state of idleness. Right to work? More like wrong to work.

"The notion that 'to get you must give' is the favourite absurdity of capitalism." - Guy Debord

[RedHammer]

Sounds an awful lot like the system we have now...

Except for all the differences between labor under capitalism and labor under socialism.

In any case, nobody should be allowed to receive benefits while choosing to contribute nothing to society indefinitely. That just makes everybody else pick up your slack.

[Leftsolidarity]

There was not a single lazy person in a socialist country. Ever.

[Ostrinski]

Work or starve policies are only applicable in a state of scarcity.

[RedHammer]

Work or starve policies are only applicable in a state of scarcity.

And when will we not have a state of scarcity? Even in a state of abundance, doesn't that wealth have to be produced by somebody? By something?

[Ostrinski]

And when will we not have a state of scarcity? Even in a state of abundance, doesn't that wealth have to be produced by somebody? By something?transcending a state of scarcity is what we call a communist society, at least around these parts

It wouldn't matter who or what does the producing in a state of free access abundance, because theres enough of all things to render the question obsolete

Furthermore, if you believe in work or starve policies under all conditions, you believe that labor can be exchanged for a certain quantity of goods, i.e. you believe that labor is commodifiable, retaining the market complex

[RedHammer]

A state of abundance is something that must be sustained. If it is sustained by having a handful of people working while most people do nothing, that's simply unfair.

The best policy in such a scenario is rotating shifts.

[human strike]

Except for all the differences between labor under capitalism and labor under socialism.

The important distinction isn't between labour under capitalism and labour under socialism, it is between alienated labour and un-alienated labour.

[Le Socialiste]

One of the great antagonisms inherent in capitalism is the ability to produce an abundance which, in turn, is reduced to its own marketability (read: profitability), producing an artificial state of scarcity. We make enough food to feed the world's population several times over, yet approximately 1 in 7 people go to bed hungry each night. By dismantling the profit system, people may enjoy an abundance of goods and services through free and independent associations of workplaces, industries, and entire communities interlinked along international lines to meet global and domestic need.

There are more pressing subjects confronting the left right now, and how to deal with lazy or unmotivated people after the revolution is not one of them.

[Philosophos]

My ideal view of communism as always been as a state of idleness. Right to work? More like wrong to work.

"The notion that 'to get you must give' is the favourite absurdity of capitalism." - Guy Debord

I think you are not being realistic here. What you believe that should be happening is something that might occure in about 50 years (at least) where all the capitalists from one country will be dead and there are going to be lots of people who grew up in a socialist system and they're ready to go in an all communist system.

At the same time just think about all the other countries around. Do you really think that these countries are going to espouse the communists' ideas? I think not. I'm sure they will be going in an all out war to stop communism ruining their "playground" of free markets.

What I want to say is that if you want to maintain something so good as socialism YOU HAVE TO WORK. There is no place in a war between ideologies (and from what I learned from history a war for monie and power) for people who don't want to work because they don't feel like it.

Just picture the rebirth of USSR. Do you really think capitalist America will just stand there and watch it evolve? No they're going for an all out war because Russia will be in need for... "more democracy". Do you really think Russia will win if there going to be these lazy a** guys that I was talking about? Do you really think it's fair for all the other people who work to see all these people ruining their dream?

So until the whole world becomes communistic I don't really think that there is place for such ideologies like "The notion that 'to get you must give' is the favourite absurdity of capitalism".

[human strike]

I think you are not being realistic here. What you believe that should be happening is something that might occure in about 50 years (at least) where all the capitalists from one country will be dead and there are going to be lots of people who grew up in a socialist system and they're ready to go in an all communist system.

I do not accept that there must be a transitional stage or "dictatorship of the proletariat". Historically revolutionary change has actually regressed when an organisation has looked to implement such a transition. I'm thinking especially of the Russian and Spanish revolutions where retreats are implemented from above. And where does this "50 years" thing come from?


At the same time just think about all the other countries around. Do you really think that these countries are going to espouse the communists' ideas? I think not. I'm sure they will be going in an all out war to stop communism ruining their "playground" of free markets.

Revolution does not occur on a national or state level. Revolution resonates across borders. To think in terms of countries is to think in fetishised terms.


What I want to say is that if you want to maintain something so good as socialism YOU HAVE TO WORK. There is no place in a war between ideologies (and from what I learned from history a war for monie and power) for people who don't want to work because they don't feel like it.

On the contrary, revolution can only happen by the refusal of work, of alienated labour.


Just picture the rebirth of USSR. Do you really think capitalist America will just stand there and watch it evolve? No they're going for an all out war because Russia will be in need for... "more democracy". Do you really think Russia will win if there going to be these lazy a** guys that I was talking about? Do you really think it's fair for all the other people who work to see all these people ruining their dream?

I don't think the working class would just stand there are watch another USSR evolve. I think the working class would be lazy and cause its downfall (as indeed did happen to the USSR!).


So until the whole world becomes communistic I don't really think that there is place for such ideologies like "The notion that 'to get you must give' is the favourite absurdity of capitalism".

But it's exactly that logic that could cause the world to become communistic, by refusing alienated labour and learning how to give without expecting to receive, as well as learning how to receive without expecting to give.

[Sheepy]

Mutual aid is a better incentive than mutual strife. Workers are to be rewarded for their work, their labor, not by the hours they have to be forced to slave to. In capitalist society, the amount of work you do is irrelevant as you're always paid the same. It's funny whenever capitalists use the same argument unknowingly against themselves.

[Generalist]

Streetlight,


Work is a good thing when you enjoy contributing/producing/serving/mastering your craft, trait, and most importantly, your mind (through continuous learning).

How is continual learning a good thing? So, you have to continually be a student throughout your whole life? That sounds like a nightmare, always afraid that you will be left behind. Again, all these concepts of "laziness" and "work" are capitalist inventions that would take a totally different form in communism. No one will be lazy in communism, as we think of it now, because there would be different valuations. In a different society, like in Africa or indigenous societies, they have a totally different attitude to "work" and "laziness." I am not saying we go primitive, but we have to change the capitalist logic of work, efficiency, productivity (whatever happened to over-productivity being self-defeating and bad for the planet?). Just maybe, if we produce less, without all this excess, having less work, less use of energy, less consumption of the earth's limited supplies of energy, we would last longer.