Not working as a way to escape capitalism/materialism? [Archive]

Thirsty Crow

1st February 2014, 18:20

He said that he was too dependent on material stuff and that working made him a part of this capitalist, inhuman, consuming society and that by not working he had found a way to escape from this at least a tiny bit. So, is he right? What do you think about this attidude? Is it helpful in any way?
I don't think this attitude can be generalized and used as a strategy of struggling against capital. Dropping out is a matter of personal choice of lifestyle and cannot be considered political.

One reason for this is that it is ridiculous to expect that millions of people would accept this austere way of life, and even worse, it makes of it a moral virtue which can then be used to judge ordinary folks all the while capital remains in operation.

And in the end, this is only an illusory kind of liberation. What does dropping out entail? Only the necessity of coming to terms with poverty, a kind of a psychological adaptation to what is basically consequences of social organization based on capital. It might seem like an emancipatory choice, but it's nothing more than adapting to prevailing conditions, and in fact the life conditions cannot be considered as self-made (one of the bases of communism), but imposed indirectly all the while the person might find some psychological comfort in living like that (imposed as in, the person is still dependent, in his living conditions, on effects of capital doing what it does - be it through inability to collect benefits due to state regulations, or the simple fact that selling one's labor power is the prerequisite of obtaining the means of subsistence normally)

This sort of ascetic living in particular is egoistical and contra-productive.
How is it "egotistical" and "counter-productive"? Counter-productive, to what?

Igor

1st February 2014, 18:30

"Lifestylism" is the most stupid way to express critics.This sort of ascetic living in particular is egoistical and contra-productive. In fact, the capitalist machine will just go on exploiting more men and women.while "lifestylism" isnt a strategy to be espoused, there's nothing wrong with people choosing to exclude themselves from the working life and its rly stupid to actually call out on people for "egoism" if they choose not to work. i also didnt see the op at any point saying it would be their way to criticise anything, but just life a life as happy as they can: certainly an endeavor to be encouraged

i really do get what kind of a liberating feeling it would be not to work and if you, somehow, have the means to pull it off and be content with the result, dont let anyone stand in your way, least of all leftists crying lifestylism. in most cases that personal freedom however comes with plenty shit of its own and dont expect it to solve everything, and especially not to actually 'escape' capitalism: just possibly enjoy it a bit more than otherwise

DOOM

1st February 2014, 18:31

I don't think this attitude can be generalized and used as a strategy of struggling against capital. Dropping out is a matter of personal choice of lifestyle and cannot be considered political.

One reason for this is that it is ridiculous to expect that millions of people would accept this austere way of life, and even worse, it makes of it a moral virtue which can then be used to judge ordinary folks all the while capital remains in operation.

And in the end, this is only an illusory kind of liberation. What does dropping out entail? Only the necessity of coming to terms with poverty, a kind of a psychological adaptation to what is basically consequences of social organization based on capital. It might seem like an emancipatory choice, but it's nothing more than adapting to prevailing conditions.

How is it "egotistical" and "counter-productive"? Counter-productive, to what?

Longing for personal "liberation" instead of longing for the worldwide liberation is kind of egoistical in my opinion. Counter-productive in the way that if people "escape" the system, they'll stop using produced goods and therefore the folks still living in the system will become poor, I guess.

Igor

1st February 2014, 18:33

PhoenixAsh

1st February 2014, 18:33

So how does he support himself?

Rosa Partizan

1st February 2014, 18:38

So how does he support himself?

he's on welfare, that's it. However, he's got a 15-month-old daughter with his ex-girlfriend, so I really don't know how this is going to work out.

Thirsty Crow

1st February 2014, 18:41

Longing for personal "liberation" instead of longing for the worldwide liberation is kind of egoistical in my opinion.There are two problems with your approach.

1) You're oscillating between a moral judgement of personal conduct and political judgements; the moral judgement of this choice being egotistical is clear I suppose, but the transition to political judgement occurs in what I'll quote below

2) I know that this is your opinion, but you haven't argued for it, you haven't backed it up.

As for my take, I don't see the purpose to such moral assessment. The guy wants to live like that? Good for him, I couldn't care less. But what I do care about is the possibility of presenting this choice as political and as a strategy for overcoming capital.

About longing for personal liberation, I do that as well, but my means are different. Completely different in fact. I wouldn't say that judging this as egotistical is all that sensible since people need to cope with life in a variety of ways, not all of them being political (so for instance, I don't die as fast inside when working if I manage to have a little symbolical revenge, for instance; love and friendship is also a way to do that, enjoying music and so on; all of this can be considered a kind of a personal liberation I suppose)

Counter-productive in the way that if people "escape" the system, they'll stop using produced goods and therefore the folks still living in the system will become poor, I guess.
Here you're engaging in an assumption that this is actually a strategy, a means to get people to act in a specific way.

As I said, if this is to be taken as political, then it would soon appear that it is not that viable an option. And by doing so, engaging in this kind of an ideological fantasy, maybe the guy would be counter-productive but for that reason of a very low degree of probability for success, I don't think the impact would be that significant. Life and class struggle go on.

The Jay

1st February 2014, 18:43

You cannot escape Capitalism unless you live on a homestead in the woods where nobody knows of. Trying to opt out of Capitalism without doing so is just a dream. I wouldn't necessarily knock someone for trying but it isn't helping anything else.

A Psychological Symphony

1st February 2014, 18:44

What was this mental condition he got from the ganja?

PhoenixAsh

1st February 2014, 18:45

he's on welfare, that's it. However, he's got a 15-month-old daughter with his ex-girlfriend, so I really don't know how this is going to work out.

So basically he is exploiting the tax system to continue his lifestyle...which in effect means free money over the backs of the working class tax payers at their expense in order to gain self gratification. In that case I'd say it is pretty egotistical.

Does he do volunteer work?
How does he support his daughter and his ex girlfriend?

Criminalize Heterosexuality

1st February 2014, 18:49

What was this mental condition he got from the ganja?

Reefer madness.

Anyway, he hasn't "escaped from the system at all"; he is receiving a certain amount of money from the state (due to the efforts of people who refused to "opt out" and instead stood their ground and fought, leading to the passage of welfare laws), and that money represents commodities manufactured by capitalist entities, including entities that superexploit workers in the Third World etc.

Besides, what's wrong with "materialism" in the sense of wanting commodities?

Igor

1st February 2014, 18:49

So basically he is exploiting the tax system to continue his lifestyle...which in effect means free money over the backs of the working class tax payers at their expense in order to gain self gratification. In that case I'd say it is pretty egotistical.do you realise how utterly and completely insignificant the amount of money 'wasted' on people choosing to live off welfare is? like not only of all of the tax money going in, but even within benefit spending? what little they're getting (and it really is little) wont be out of working class pockets

socialists using the 'but my tax dollars' line is ridic

Anti-Traditional

1st February 2014, 19:38

Not working is pretty cool, for a while. Past year and a half I've been living off my student loan. However, I found that after a while I felt alienated from everyone else working. It's great to have free time, but I need people to spend it with which is hard if everyone is at work. And then when everyone else has time, I have no money anyway.

Tenka

1st February 2014, 20:02

I have to say that the man is a little delusional if he thinks he can escape capitalism by any individual means short of ending himself--let alone by not working. One is still using produced commodities and so on. There is no way to avoid spending and consuming. Isn't Buddhism a kind of enlightened nihilism? I call it such because it seems to fit with my conception of it, and sounds funny, but I wonder on occasion how accurate that is.

Sabot Cat

1st February 2014, 20:14

I'm not going to condemn him ethically, but he seems to be using quasi-spiritual reasons to shrug off work without being committed to anything like a movement to liberate the proletariat. His folly is that of the hippies': a preference for utopian socialism expressed through lifestyle, and not scientific socialism demonstrated through direct action against the ruling class.

Rosa Partizan

1st February 2014, 20:17

What was this mental condition he got from the ganja?

he got a psychosis. He was a total hardcore pothead.

So basically he is exploiting the tax system to continue his lifestyle...which in effect means free money over the backs of the working class tax payers at their expense in order to gain self gratification. In that case I'd say it is pretty egotistical.

Does he do volunteer work?
How does he support his daughter and his ex girlfriend?

No, he doesn't do anything and he doesn't support his daughter and ex either. When I told him that I study and that I have 2 part time jobs, he was all like "well, you're very integrated in this system", saying it with kind of a condescending tone.

Igor

1st February 2014, 20:23

yeah well he sounds like a massive douche

Criminalize Heterosexuality

1st February 2014, 20:28

No, he doesn't do anything and he doesn't support his daughter and ex either. When I told him that I study and that I have 2 part time jobs, he was all like "well, you're very integrated in this system", saying it with kind of a condescending tone.

Getting crushed under a jackboot tends to integrate you into the sole of the boot pretty well, yeah. Seriously, the guy sounds like a complete jackass.

consuming negativity

1st February 2014, 20:47

Since I really don't know which forum would be appropriate für such a thread, I open it here. Some weeks ago, I was (kind of) dating a guy which I met at a New Year's Eve party. At this party, he told me he would neither work nor study, and we didn't go into detail about that. When I met him some days later, I asked him about it.

He told me that he used to work, but had to stop because of some serious mental condition caused by overusing marihuana. Then he got into buddhism and a bit into politics and decided to change his life. He gave away a lot of his stuff and when he got better, he didn't want to work anyway.

He said that he was too dependent on material stuff and that working made him a part of this capitalist, inhuman, consuming society and that by not working he had found a way to escape from this at least a tiny bit. So, is he right? What do you think about this attidude? Is it helpful in any way?

You can't live in society and be free from society. I'm not the biggest fan of Lenin in the world but he was spot on about that. If you're asking if his lifestyle is helpful to him; well, only he can really answer that. But if you're asking as to whether or not the rest of us benefit, I would say not really. Boycotts don't work and not everybody can choose to just not be a part of the system - in the same way that not everybody can be vegan or any other number of things that are only accessible to certain people in certain societies.

Now, let me be clear; that doesn't mean I'm not going to criticize him for it. If he's living his life more the way he wants it to be, then more power to him and I hope he gets what he's looking for. But if his ultimate goal is to change the system, boycotting has never worked and he could do a ton more good in that regard by organizing and fighting back. Then, maybe that's not possible for him and he's doing all he can. This is really a question for him to ask himself first and foremost.

RedMaterialist

1st February 2014, 21:04

How does he eat and pay the rent?

If he receives welfare (which I believe you said) isn't that simply a distribution of part of the wealth created by the working class? In effect, the ruling class is bribing him with workers' money not to disrupt the system. If austerity in Europe continues to get worse he might lose the welfare.

AnaRchic

3rd February 2014, 06:12

PhoenixAsh

3rd February 2014, 07:31

do you realise how utterly and completely insignificant the amount of money 'wasted' on people choosing to live off welfare is? like not only of all of the tax money going in, but even within benefit spending? what little they're getting (and it really is little) wont be out of working class pockets

socialists using the 'but my tax dollars' line is ridic

It isn't the amount of tax dollars.

It is the fact that he is in fact paid for by the work working class in order for him not to work while he is able to do so. Which means he is still integrated within the system and living a lifestyle paid for by the working class. And at the same time abusing a system which is meant for those who either can not work or who can't find work which was hard fought for by him doing exactly the opposite of what the intention was by both socialists and communists and labour unions when they organized to gain these so called privileges.

I am very sure none of these groups would find that an acceptable outcome of their struggle....I am not aware of any revolutionary group which condones conscious exploitation of welfare systems at the expense of those which it is meant for...since it kind of violates the basic principle of ability obligation. But I am very sure you will all be able to enlighten me on this and provide me with links to organisations on the ideological and revolutionary political arguments put forward by those who do.

human strike

3rd February 2014, 07:45

A healthy aversion to work is the purest of communist virtues.

So basically he is exploiting the tax system to continue his lifestyle...which in effect means free money over the backs of the working class tax payers at their expense in order to gain self gratification. In that case I'd say it is pretty egotistical.

What a load of reactionary bollocks. Seriously, the shit that's been posted in this thread, fuck me. The state steals from the working class so to steal from the state is stealing from the class? Wtf? Shit's laughable. Let's not pretend that your objections are anything but denunciations to the work society driven by your deeply held productivist ideology.

Criminalize Heterosexuality

3rd February 2014, 10:05

As I see it there are two distinct ways to survive in capitalist society. You either play the game and allow yourself to be exploited for money; or, you say fuck that and embrace criminality as a lifestyle. A number of Anarchists in the 19th century chose this second option; see illegalism.

Either go to work, make your money, and make the absolute most of your free time, or sell drugs/steal to support yourself and enjoy life. Both options have they're benefits and they're drawbacks. Are you willing to take serious risks? Can you handle being thrown into the state's gulags? Can you kill if you have to? If you answered no to any of these, get a job!

And fuck relying on welfare if you're not going to work. That is just you indirectly exploiting the labor of others rather than laboring yourself, not cool. Either work or be a criminal, those are the only two legitimate options for revolutionaries.

The thing is, criminals also indirectly exploit the labor of others - all of us do - and in particular, the things they steal, the money they get from buying drugs etc. didn't immaculately appear from the void. I'm not passing any sort of judgment, by the way - I find that obnoxious. I just don't see much of a difference between criminality and living on welfare with regards to the relation of these modes of living to the extraction of surplus value etc. etc.

It is the fact that he is in fact paid for by the work working class in order for him not to work while he is able to do so. Which means he is still integrated within the system and living a lifestyle paid for by the working class. And at the same time abusing a system which is meant for those who either can not work or who can't find work which was hard fought for by him doing exactly the opposite of what the intention was by both socialists and communists and labour unions when they organized to gain these so called privileges.

He is still integrated into the system, true - which is why I find his statements hilarious - but why attack him, not for his hypocrisy, but for making capitalism a biiit less efficient? Communists shouldn't concern themselves with the efficiency of capitalism - let the entire thing go to hell.

Igor

3rd February 2014, 11:38

It isn't the amount of tax dollars.

so, really, your position is just entirely moralist. its not based on whether this harms, benefits or even affects the working class at all but rather on your idea of what people should be doing

It is the fact that he is in fact paid for by the work working class in order for him not to work while he is able to do so. Which means he is still integrated within the system and living a lifestyle paid for by the working class. And at the same time abusing a system which is meant for those who either can not work or who can't find work which was hard fought for by him doing exactly the opposite of what the intention was by both socialists and communists and labour unions when they organized to gain these so called privileges.but he's not paid directly be the class, hes paid by the state. if every single welfare 'mooch' in this country got a job tomorrow, not a dime less would be taxed from me.

it really just boils down to your hangups here, to the idea that working in itself is a virtue, something everyone should be doing regardless of whether their labour is in any manner necessary. its an idea that capitalist society is based on and something we as revolutionaries should aim to abolish. it might be 'abuse' but i fail to understand what exactly is the problem with abusing and playing the system, the system we're trying to get rid of here. upholding of capitalist institutions and respect for the law isnt very radical u no

I am very sure none of these groups would find that an acceptable outcome of their struggle....I am not aware of any revolutionary group which condones conscious exploitation of welfare systems at the expense of those which it is meant for...since it kind of violates the basic principle of ability obligation. But I am very sure you will all be able to enlighten me on this and provide me with links to organisations on the ideological and revolutionary political arguments put forward by those who do.idk if any organisation 'condones' this openly but an organisation that would actually go and condemn it would be quite shit and liberal in my books

PhoenixAsh

7th February 2014, 11:13

A healthy aversion to work is the purest of communist virtues.

What a load of reactionary bollocks. Seriously, the shit that's been posted in this thread, fuck me. The state steals from the working class so to steal from the state is stealing from the class? Wtf? Shit's laughable. Let's not pretend that your objections are anything but denunciations to the work society driven by your deeply held productivist ideology.

Actually socialism is productivist. So your criticism of productivism as reactionary is quite, quite laughable. Even Anarchism in its core is productivist as it requires participation and contribution to the community.

I will respond more fully to the posts in this thread when I have more time.

Tenka

7th February 2014, 11:32

Actually socialism is productivist. So your criticism of productivism as reactionary is quite, quite laughable. Even Anarchism in its core is productivist as it requires participation and contribution to the community.

I will respond more fully to the posts in this thread when I have more time.

Rather be a welfare queen than use my flesh and blood to lubricate the gears of a productivist machine too backwards to automate shit, not saying anything for or against productivism as such. The aim of the proletarian dictatorship leading up to socialism is to abolish classes, including (last of all) its own. I suppose we'd be pretty productive then, going about things smarter and without any profit motive, but would we be productivist? I'll be honest with you: I have not read much theory.

Danielle Ni Dhighe

7th February 2014, 11:50

Really, there are RevLeft posters whining about welfare benefits exploiting working class taxpayers? How reactionary.

GiantMonkeyMan

7th February 2014, 13:36

G4b3n

7th February 2014, 14:20

I have never heard anyone developing a "mental condition" from using too much marijuana. I smoke over a half ounce, sometimes a whole ounce, a week and I work and go to school. I am not saying it is impossible because people are different, but it sounds odd to me.

Also, not working is an escape from having your labor dominated by some bourgeois fuck. However, it is not an escape from capitalism, society is bound by bourgeois property relations and we are in the thick of it.

Tenka

7th February 2014, 14:29

I have never heard anyone developing a "mental condition" from using too much marijuana. I smoke over a half ounce, sometimes a whole ounce, a week and I work and go to school. I am not saying it is impossible because people are different, but it sounds odd to me.

I have only heard that it can trigger schizophrenia in some susceptible individuals (one of the reasons I'll never try it and refuse to be near potheads). Omg the forum's spellchecker considers "potheads" to be a word...

edit: Maybe this is why. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pothead)

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

7th February 2014, 14:32

My attempt at dropping out of society when I was younger led full circle to a super normal job/life, almost without me noticing. Capitalism is more devious than you think and the need for survival will force compromises on you that you never expected. Not to dump on anyone currently checked out, just my experience.

I can get really, really unmotivated if I smoke too much but I don't think it's a side effect of the weed. 90% of daily life is hype and bullshit, getting high just kind of puts it into perspective for me. I'd rather read a book or goof off in the woods.

PhoenixAsh

7th February 2014, 18:56

Marx's goal is leisure, not labour. The best reason for being a socialist, apart from annoying people you happen to dislike, is that you detest having to work. Marx thought that capitalism had developed the forces of production to the point at which, under different social relations, they could be used to emancipate the majority of men and women from the most degrading forms of labour. - Terry Eagleton

Having been unemployed for a bit, having to go to the jobcentre every other week and fill out stupid forms for stupid reasons, I got sick of being unemployed quickly. Although the job I've got right now has literally made me weigh up the pros and cons of quitting and just getting back on the dole.

Marx's goal is not leisure but the end of exploitation and alienation of labour which will in turn create leisure and changes work into something more pleasurable. This however does not absolve the individual of the obligation of participation and contribution to the community.

This whole idea builds on Morelly's utopianism and is ultimately represented in Marx's critic on the Gotha program:

In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!

This last phrase predates Marx and is the foundation of socialist economic ideology. Marx follows the Utopian explanation of this phrase to a tee and the idea is that everybody has an obligation to participate and contribute to the best of their ability in accordance with the needs of the community.

The criticism in this thread gets even more laughable when you consider Marx's position on welfare (and ironically also taxation of the rich) as bourgeoisie notions in his address to the CC of the Communist League and rejected them for a lot of reasons of which two very specifically are relevant to this debate: limiting the efficiency of capitalism and because they alienate from the production process. Marx's entire line of argument is a little more complex but it boils down to the fact that he specifically argued that welfare only served to undermine class and revolutionary consciousness and should, together with any form of advancing conditions of the working class such as higher wages, work hour reduction, be rejected. Welfare in the eyes of Marx was just very much part of the capitalist mode of production. Interestingly enough...Marx also objected to taxing the rich. Just to add more oil to the flames.

Marx's views on welfare are also evident in the class divisions...and especially his description of lumpen proletariat in which he specifically included those with no interest in the production enterprises and those who leeched on society. Marx wasn't very fond of the Lumpenproletariat.

The main goal of socialism has always been "from each to their ability and to each by their needs". Not..."from each when the bloody well feel like it"

In subsequent development of theory this specifically excludes people who are able to contribute but refuse to do so. Anarchist theory for example has specifically mentioned such instances as a reason for exclusion from the community.

The concept of refusing to work and participate in the community when you are able in capitalist society outside the class struggle has always been rejected by revolutionary movements. Which was for example one of the criticisms from Marxists against the autonomous communities. But even in autonomous communities you have the obligation to contribute. Those that were for one reason or another not able or were placed in a position in which they could no longer sustain themselves were helped and supported but those who simply refused to participate in any way shape or form were pretty much shunned and viewed with suspicion. You either work to support yourself or you participate by other ways to contribute. Refusing to do so is a completely bourgeoisie and reactionary notion and was not accepted.

Now...as for he argument of moralism and ethics. I am an Anarchists. Which is pretty much based in moral and ethical thought....such as mutual aid. Interestingly enough Kropotkin wrote a very enlightening pamphlet about this...based on exactly the phrase to each according to his need. I suggest you all read that.

I don't give a flying fuck whether somebody gains benefits or welfare and takes their sweet time to find new employment or doesn't work. As long as you contribute to the community. Which means you either work, try to find work or you take care of others.

The notion that you place yourself outside the mode of production by living of welfare and caring fuck all about anybody else but yourself is neither Marxist (see above) and non-revolutionary. In fact it is thoroughly bourgeoisie and reactionary.

Had this person taken up a care giving role or advanced the class struggle as a professional revolutionary or in any other way shape or form contributed to the community to volunteer work or helping others on a structural basis...I wouldn't have batted an eyelash. But as it stands the socialist idea has and will always be rejecting this notion based on the fact that they profit from the community and a system which is not meant for self advancement of egocentric ideals.

But a lot of people here seem to be very very confused by which debate we are actually having...given the introduction of the term "welfare queen". This term is coined within the confines of an entirely different debate about the merits of the welfare system itself and is both derogatory and a racialized gender slur for those who supposedly exploit the system of welfare to get rich. This was part of the debate to reduce social welfare by means of creating the false notion that exploitation and misuse of the system was rife among welfare recipients. That notion is objectionable for several obvious reasons.....but confusing that debate with the debate of what to do when somebody actually does exploit the system is a huge difference such as the clear cut case here.

Welfare has been extremely hard fought. And the socialist ideal specifically excluded the notion of people misusing the system. Socialists then saw misuse as something unthinkable. Since the system itself was set up entirely to help and aid those who could not work to provide for themselves.

So both on the basis of it being un-Marxist , un socialist and on the Anarchist notion of Mutual aid...the position of the person we are debating is objectionable. Both theoretically, economically and morally.

And yes. I indeed see the purposeful misuse of the system as exploiting the working class...because it is part of the capitalist system and because it is the only funds redirected towards the working class itself. By rejecting that notion you IMO legitimize the governments ownership of collective funds and taxation. After all we provide the fucking money.

There is however a world of difference in stating the obvious: exploitation of the system is unwanted and morally and revolutionary objectionable....and arguing the system should go because of

As for the notion of introducing personal experience into the debate. I have been on benefits and welfare for two years. In that time I used a lot of my free time either participating in the class struggle in some way or another and I participated in either self initiated or existing volunteer programs. Currently I have again been unemployed and I have rejected the notion to claim any benefits until I am forced to do so...because I find them incompatible with these views.

Illegalitarian

7th February 2014, 22:24

argeiphontes

7th February 2014, 23:13

I don't see anything wrong with choosing a free lifestyle, if that's what somebody wants to do. I wouldn't mind living on a commune somewhere or off the grid in a pretty part of the country. Life is finite, there is nothing wrong with finding your own happiness, and I would encourage you to do so.

Personally I think it's better to do this by participating in prefigurative institutions like worker coops, perhaps even some of these 'intentional communities'. Of course, not everybody is going to dedicate themselves to social change or have that as a real possibility. Dogmatic leftists are partly to blame for that, anyway, because these prefigurative institutions are often seen as "utopian" or "lifestylist" so few people are investing any effort into them. No real possibilities for change exist, so people take individual paths instead, and I don't blame them. It's completely predictable.

In any case, being a revolutionary for your entire life requires a serious ethical commitment that few people are going to make. Lots of people just want to live their lives in a way that's acceptable to their standards, and it sounds like that's what the guy in the OP was trying to do. Eke out an acceptable existence.

PhoenixAsh

8th February 2014, 00:13

Class-oriented struggle is the foundation of communism, but being obsessed with the idea of labor to the point that you're calling those who support refusal of work "reactionary" is so hilariously antiquated that I'm not even 100% sure how to respond. The point of what we aspire to achieve should not simply be the freedom of labor, but more importantly, the freedom from labor. If someone has the ability to not-work and also live a comfortable life, they should go for it.

That being said I wouldn't really advocate this for anyone who doesn't have the means to do it, it's not really all that enjoyable. If it were as easy as just not working and still living a sub-par life, everyone would do it.

In that case you should read Lafargue or Kurz. The first is a Marxist of whom Marx (you know...his father in law) said: "if he is a Marxist then I am not one" and who states laziness is the motor of human progress and the other one argues against class struggle and states it is all merely a conflict between interests. On the anarchist site you should feel very comfortable with Black.

First...all of the protagonists of freedom from work STILL operated and acted on the revolutionary level and contributed to the class struggle directly
Second...all of the protagonists of freedom from work STILL propagate the necessity to contribute to the community.

PhoenixAsh

8th February 2014, 00:27

"reactionary"

Actually we are not only talking about the refusal to work on a permanent basis, we are also talking refusal to participate in the community and participate in the class struggle.

I honestly don't understand where all the posturing comes from by defending that. But is an entirely knee-jerk reaction to petit bourgeoisie mentality doused in some pseudo revolutionary righteous indignation because somebody does it in a capitalist mode of production so it is all fine.

The reality however is:

* Guy doesn't work because he doesn't want to participate in the capitalist mode of production. Goes on welfare and is thus thoroughly emerged in the capitalist mode of production and the results and exploitation of others.
* Guy extracts himself from any form of actual class struggle
* Guy dodges responsibility to kid and ex. Leaving mother to fend for herself within a patriarchal society.
* Guy does nothing to contribute to society whatsoever.

That is what you are defending....on a revolutionary website.

PhoenixAsh

8th February 2014, 00:36

Illegalitarian

8th February 2014, 02:41

The notion of freedom from work is nice and all but that requires work to be something that is fully automated or it requires we simply stop doing anything that requires work. Neither are something for the near future. Shit needs doing and so there needs to be work. Houses need building, food needs to be produced, stuff needs to be repaired.

Until that time comes however we still need to deal with a little thing such as overthrowing capitalism.

You mention Black (I assume you mean Bob) yet I'm pretty sure you're not familiar with any of his work if this is what you think the refusal of work tendency is about, just simply laying down and not doing anything ever.

* Guy dodges responsibility to kid and ex. Leaving mother to fend for herself within a patriarchal society.

Um, what? So the type of people who don't work are also the kind of people that would completely give up on taking care of their family? There are many people who don't work that are also good fathers and good husbands, this is frankly insulting.

Actually we are not only talking about the refusal to work on a permanent basis, we are also talking refusal to participate in the community and participate in the class struggle.

Then you're attacking a strawman, because no one who advocated the abolition/refusal of work also condemns community activity, class struggle, or any other form of direct action.

Too many people try and equate lifestylism to isolation from the rest of the movement, disregarding the fact that the kind of people who dedicate their entire lives to trying to live outside of the system are the same people who usually contribute the most to direct action, leftist community building etc.

I don't see anything wrong with choosing a free lifestyle, if that's what somebody wants to do. I wouldn't mind living on a commune somewhere or off the grid in a pretty part of the country. Life is finite, there is nothing wrong with finding your own happiness, and I would encourage you to do so.

Personally I think it's better to do this by participating in prefigurative institutions like worker coops, perhaps even some of these 'intentional communities'. Of course, not everybody is going to dedicate themselves to social change or have that as a real possibility. Dogmatic leftists are partly to blame for that, anyway, because these prefigurative institutions are often seen as "utopian" or "lifestylist" so few people are investing any effort into them. No real possibilities for change exist, so people take individual paths instead, and I don't blame them. It's completely predictable.

In any case, being a revolutionary for your entire life requires a serious ethical commitment that few people are going to make. Lots of people just want to live their lives in a way that's acceptable to their standards, and it sounds like that's what the guy in the OP was trying to do. Eke out an acceptable existence.

Exactly. Condemning those who try and find their own little slice of anti-capitalist life while they're still alive just seems like bitter arm-chair revolutionary nonsense to me. If you want to condemn illegalism/refusal to work/off-the-grid living by saying that these are not revolutionary tactics, fine (though I would debate this point on illegalism), but let's not attack these people for trying to do something with their lives while they still can.

I would encourage everyone here to try and live in an intentional community or explore these other way's of living often attacked as "lifestylist" or "adventurist". That doesn't mean you can't still participate in other forms of struggle.

Thirsty Crow

8th February 2014, 02:43

I'd say that this moral condemnation is misguided precisely because the community today is the community of capital, and that any kind of a moral imperative of productiveness necessarily hinges on a kind of an ideological reproduction of aspects of this community.

This is all the more pertinent because, what you term extracting oneself from class struggle is a common practice to huge numbers of proletarians, so it is far from clear why this case should merit a different kind of focus (and I do hope that outright condemnation would not be the reaction of communists to proletarians refusing to engage in class struggle since real concerns as motives for this aren't going to be effected one bit).

And an individual choice doesn't merit this focus, honestly, since it isn't the case that these few individuals across the globe can hamper the struggle once it takes off, if this lifestyle doesn't become ideological, or in other words - if this perspective doesn't get advocated as an alternative to workers' struggle.

The familial issues are another thing, and indeed this can be approached as you do.

Though on the other hand, the idea that there's something like an anti-capitalist life is utter bollocks which robs the notion of anti-capitalist activity of any recognizable content, especially alongside the implicit idea that these alternative ways of life represent a kind of a struggle (well, apart from a personal struggle for some breathing space, real or imagined; which is all there is to it).

Exactly. Condemning those who try and find their own little slice of anti-capitalist life while they're still alive just seems like bitter arm-chair revolutionary nonsense to me.

PhoenixAsh

8th February 2014, 02:49

You mention Black (I assume you mean Bob) yet I'm pretty sure you're not familiar with any of his work if this is what you think the refusal of work tendency is about, just simply laying down and not doing anything ever.

You should read what I actually write before you reply to it.

Um, what? So the type of people who don't work are also the kind of people that would completely give up on taking care of their family? There are many people who don't work that are also good fathers and good husbands, this is frankly insulting.

Did you actually read the reason of this thread?

Then you're attacking a strawman, because no one who advocated the abolition/refusal of work also condemns community activity, class struggle, or any other form of direct action.

Again..did you actually read the reason of this thread?

Too many people try and equate lifestylism to isolation from the rest of the movement, disregarding the fact that the kind of people who dedicate their entire lives to trying to live outside of the system are the same people who usually contribute the most to direct action, leftist community building etc.

sigh...this gets repetitive...did you actually read the thread and the discussion at all?

Exactly. Condemning those who try and find their own little slice of anti-capitalist life while they're still alive just seems like bitter arm-chair revolutionary nonsense to me.

Welfare is NOT anti-Capitalist life. Welfare is endemic in the capitalist system and part of its mode of production.

If you want to condemn illegalism/refusal to work/off-the-grid living by saying that these are not revolutionary tactics, fine (though I would debate this point on illegalism), but let's not attack these people for trying to do something with their lives while they still can.

I have not condemned illgalism. I have not condemned off-the-grid. NEITHER are relevant to the topic.

I am however condemning this very, very specific instance of refusal to work. And in a broader sense I am not a fan of the refusal to work ideology.

I would encourage everyone here to try and live in an intentional community or explore these other way's of living often attacked as "lifestylist" or "adventurist". That doesn't mean you can't still participate in other forms of struggle.

Again.....actually read posts and threads before replying. If you are not going to bother and you are just going to dump some arguments in on the basis of vaguely guessing at what is going on then and what somebody is saying...we can't perform any constructive debate.

Illegalitarian

8th February 2014, 02:56

I have followed this thread since it's start, maybe you should tell me what I'm missing instead of just saying I'm missing the point?

PhoenixAsh

8th February 2014, 03:03

I have followed this thread since it's start, maybe you should tell me what I'm missing instead of just saying I'm missing the point?

* What you are missing is the specific casus of the thread. Guy goes Buddhist and wants to live an ascetic non materialist life. Goes on welfare. Does not support ex and child. Does not do volunteer/community work. Does not participate in the class struggle.

This is what I have been replying to the whole time.

* You also missed that I was revering to the strive towards freedom from work in that quote. Not to the theory of refusal to work.

The Jay

8th February 2014, 03:05

Class-oriented struggle is the foundation of communism, but being obsessed with the idea of labor to the point that you're calling those who support refusal of work "reactionary" is so hilariously antiquated that I'm not even 100% sure how to respond. The point of what we aspire to achieve should not simply be the freedom of labor, but more importantly, the freedom from labor. If someone has the ability to not-work and also live a comfortable life, they should go for it.

That being said I wouldn't really advocate this for anyone who doesn't have the means to do it, it's not really all that enjoyable. If it were as easy as just not working and still living a sub-par life, everyone would do it.

Like I said earlier, that's cool for you or whomever we are discussing but it doesn't do anything for the class. To put it another way: it is not revolutionary, it is escapist. Feel free to run away if you want but know that living off the grid doesn't help anyone.

I'm not factoring morality into it though since if someone wants to detach that is their business. The thing is that I insist that no more should be made of it than that.

PhoenixAsh

8th February 2014, 03:11

I'd say that this moral condemnation is misguided precisely because the community today is the community of capital, and that any kind of a moral imperative of productiveness necessarily hinges on a kind of an ideological reproduction of aspects of this community.

That is why you are left-com and I am Anarchists. As you may have noticed the entire basis of Anarchist theory and ideology is both moralism and ethics. It is kind of hard to be one without the other.

But as a left-com you probably follow Marxist criticism here. Which is productivist and excludes escapism...and which specifically states that welfare is entirely part of the capitalist mode of production.

This is all the more pertinent because, what you term extracting oneself from class struggle is a common practice to huge numbers of proletarians, so it is far from clear why this case should merit a different kind of focus (and I do hope that outright condemnation would not be the reaction of communists to proletarians refusing to engage in class struggle since real concerns as motives for this aren't going to be effected one bit).

You have to explain this view. We are not talking about false class consciousness.

And an individual choice doesn't merit this focus, honestly, since it isn't the case that these few individuals across the globe can hamper the struggle once it takes off, if this lifestyle doesn't become ideological, or in other words - if this perspective doesn't get advocated as an alternative to workers' struggle.

The focus on the individual is this thread.

But the ideology is already out there in different works. Marx's son in law is one of the major proponents of the refuse to work ideology.

The familial issues are another thing, and indeed this can be approached as you do.

I know ;)

Though on the other hand, the idea that there's something like an anti-capitalist life is utter bollocks which robs the notion of anti-capitalist activity of any recognizable content, especially alongside the implicit idea that these alternative ways of life represent a kind of a struggle (well, apart from a personal struggle for some breathing space, real or imagined; which is all there is to it).

agreed

Thirsty Crow

8th February 2014, 03:32

That is why you are left-com and I am Anarchists. As you may have noticed the entire basis of Anarchist theory and ideology is both moralism and ethics. It is kind of hard to be one without the other.

But as a left-com you probably follow Marxist criticism here. Which is productivist and excludes escapism...and which specifically states that welfare is entirely part of the capitalist mode of production. Honestly, I've got to say that I don't understand your point here.

I don't get what does excluding escapism mean...apart from excluding it through clear criticism as a viable strategy for proletarian self-emancipation.

And about productivism, the notion is familiar but a bit vague in this context, especially how it relates to my underlying point, that being: it's...I dunno, irrelevant, meaningless and not productive to morally condemn this kind of a life (it's also worth adding that I associate the notion with the abortive form of Marxism found in Second International parties). It's unnecessary, that might be the best descriptor here actually, nothing is gained by it. Under the condition of course that refusal to work isn't taken as a solid basis for the human community, the projected communist society - as I agree with you that stuff will need to be produced, and that the community can actually ensure that necessary labor time is significantly shortened and the drudgery eliminated where possible, and where not shared throughout the community. This I understand as a, maybe this needs to be added - a kind of a partial freedom from work, Marx's famous sphere of freedom which can be expanded to great joy of humanity (pardon my jolly rhetoric; it seems kinda weird, but appropriate nonetheless).

You have to explain this view. We are not talking about false class consciousness. I'm talking about the logical conclusions of your approach, which if applied consistently, would necessarily mean a similar kind of condemnation of proletarians who refuse to participate in struggle at some point (for instance, out of fear, or a kind of a fatalist passivity) and in a specific situation. I don't think this is productive, far from it.

The focus on the individual is this thread.
Yeah, it's just that OP framed the debate by asking whether this can be considered viable as a strategy or a tactic. As I said, I don't think one can get something out of condemning the guy.

But the ideology is already out there in different works. Marx's son in law is one of the major proponents of the refuse to work ideology.

Yeah, and that ideology needs to be tackled, and without falling into the trap of a work ethic analogous to, for instance, Stalinist distortions or one smacking of bourgeois ideology. Here the impulse to freedom conceived in this way needs to be placed alongside the real possibility of huge changes in labor processes and working hours (which are, in my opinion, a vital part of the revolutionary transformation from day one - meaning immediately, at least as perspectives and goals which need to be reached).

I think I managed to express myself better with regard to the dangers I perceive in your approach.

PhoenixAsh

8th February 2014, 05:01

Honestly, I've got to say that I don't understand your point here.

I don't get what does excluding escapism mean...apart from excluding it through clear criticism as a viable strategy for proletarian self-emancipation.

And about productivism, the notion is familiar but a bit vague in this context, especially how it relates to my underlying point, that being: it's...I dunno, irrelevant, meaningless and not productive to morally condemn this kind of a life (it's also worth adding that I associate the notion with the abortive form of Marxism found in Second International parties). It's unnecessary, that might be the best descriptor here actually, nothing is gained by it. Under the condition of course that refusal to work isn't taken as a solid basis for the human community, the projected communist society - as I agree with you that stuff will need to be produced, and that the community can actually ensure that necessary labor time is significantly shortened and the drudgery eliminated where possible, and where not shared throughout the community. This I understand as a, maybe this needs to be added - a kind of a partial freedom from work, Marx's famous sphere of freedom which can be expanded to great joy of humanity (pardon my jolly rhetoric; it seems kinda weird, but appropriate nonetheless).

The point was that any anarchist reasoning on any matter will invariably boil down to moralism and ethics as that is the basis of Anarchist ideology. And it is in direct contract with the theoretical analytics of Marxism. It is essentially the clash in ideologies.

Now I did not just morally condemn this kind of live. I even framed it in theory paraphrasing and citing Marx non the less. The notion of refuse to work is escapism when it goes hand in hand with excluding contributing in any meaningful way to the community. And that is a notion which is thoroughly rejected by socialism as per paradigm: ability - need.

You mention the partial freedom from labour through improving work conditions. I don't disagree with you here. I am all for it. I do like to point out however that Marx disagreed with it. And that it has no bearing on the discussion of whether or not somebody refuses to work.

I'm talking about the logical conclusions of your approach, which if applied consistently, would necessarily mean a similar kind of condemnation of proletarians who refuse to participate in struggle at some point (for instance, out of fear, or a kind of a fatalist passivity) and in a specific situation. I don't think this is productive, far from it.

No it actually doesn't and it is not a logical conclusion to the approach as the class conditions and the classes are entirely different as is the basis for the decisions and their eventual outcome.

Yeah, it's just that OP framed the debate by asking whether this can be considered viable as a strategy or a tactic. As I said, I don't think one can get something out of condemning the guy.

Except answering OP's question: So, is he right? What do you think about this attidude?

Yeah, and that ideology needs to be tackled, and without falling into the trap of a work ethic analogous to, for instance, Stalinist distortions or one smacking of bourgeois ideology. Here the impulse to freedom conceived in this way needs to be placed alongside the real possibility of huge changes in labor processes and working hours (which are, in my opinion, a vital part of the revolutionary transformation from day one - meaning immediately, at least as perspectives and goals which need to be reached).

Nobody made work ethics analogous. The statement that I made was simple:

Choosing to live on welfare while you are able to work and at the same time not contributing in any meaningful way to either the community or the advancement of class struggle is thoroughly bourgeoisie and reactionary.

This is founded in socialist principle; both Marxist and Anarchist. And both for political, economic and moral reasons should be rejected.

In fact the socialist position has always been that the notion welfare itself was bourgeoisie and that exploiting that welfare was bourgeoisie attitude.

I think I managed to express myself better with regard to the dangers I perceive in your approach.

I haven't seen you mention any dangers just objections.

What would be interesting though is to hear the reactions of the very same refusal to contribute/work during the DOTP or after the DOTP.

Axiomasher

8th February 2014, 07:50

Longing for personal "liberation" instead of longing for the worldwide liberation is kind of egoistical in my opinion. Counter-productive in the way that if people "escape" the system, they'll stop using produced goods and therefore the folks still living in the system will become poor, I guess.

Sometimes people are so mentally crushed by the economic and social impositions of capitalism (the capitalism which has gone a long way to shape what they think is possible) that their reaction is merely to withdraw, or attempt to withdraw. Plenty of people reject capitalism because of what they experience and what they see see but for any number of reasons struggle to do any more than that, we shouldn't be blaming them, they're not the enemy they are victims too.

Rosa Partizan

8th February 2014, 08:16

Um, what? So the type of people who don't work are also the kind of people that would completely give up on taking care of their family? There are many people who don't work that are also good fathers and good husbands, this is frankly insulting.

In very most cases, people having family and not working do so because they either have to stay at home or don't find a job. Neither of these is the case with this guy. His ex works AND she's with the kid 24/7, he sees the kid once a week for some hours. She can't work full time because of the kid, so she hardly makes ends meet. This all would be a different story if he had to care only for himself, but this aspect of letting his "family" down financially makes him an egoistic prick.

Illegalitarian

8th February 2014, 08:26

Yeah, my bad, missed the part about the ex and all that. Sorry!

Rosa Partizan

8th February 2014, 08:29

Yeah, my bad, missed the part about the ex and all that. Sorry!

No big deal. I somehow have become more pragmatic over the last 10 years in some ways, which meant some loss of idealism. If someone depends on you, you can't have it your way all the time, no matter how well-meant and idealistic your way is.

PhoenixAsh

8th February 2014, 13:45

Axiomasher

8th February 2014, 15:12

I think we (and with that I mean I specifically contributed to that) should move away from the specific instance and from the most general description of disassociation and focus on the theoretical exploration and arguments pro and con of the revolutionary ideologies propagating "refusal to work".

I mentioned a few theorists in both the Marxist and Anarchist spectrum...so we could perhaps work from there.

Personally I'm sympathetic to those who withdraw as even if it isn't revolutionary in the orthodox sense it still represents an act of rejection/resistance within the scope of what an individual might feel is possible for them (not everyone is mentally or physically up for all-out on the street or in the factory confrontation). If widespread withdrawal contributed to a crisis for capitalism (as opposed to the crisis capitalism causes for us) then that can only be a good thing.

human strike

8th February 2014, 15:25

* What you are missing is the specific casus of the thread. Guy goes Buddhist and wants to live an ascetic non materialist life. Goes on welfare. Does not support ex and child. Does not do volunteer/community work. Does not participate in the class struggle.

One thing I find very interesting is how a number of people have assumed this "not participating in the struggle" thing despite, a) knowing next to nothing about the man, and, b) it not being exactly possible to not participate in the class struggle; if we cannot escape capitalism then we cannot escape class struggle either. I think the real complaint here is a perceived refusal to sacrifice oneself to work and ideology, even though the latter is completely assumed. This kind of martyr mentality of militants and activists drives me mad and I don't think it is at all communist or revolutionary, far from it, it is distinctly capitalist. When an individual hints at refusing their role in the spectacle of opposition you can always rely on socialist and anarchist ideologues to chastise them for it.

Tenka

8th February 2014, 15:41

I think the man's a lowlife for fathering a child and not paying support--not for being on welfare. Though people on welfare don't exactly live to the common ("1st world") standard, neither do single working mothers. Living off welfare is neither revolutionary nor problematic to revolutionaries. That said, I am a firm believer that laziness is the prime motivator in all that we call "progress" (of the means of production, at least) and a "good work ethic" is a fatal flaw in any individual communist.

PhoenixAsh

8th February 2014, 18:19

One thing I find very interesting is how a number of people have assumed this "not participating in the struggle" thing despite, a) knowing next to nothing about the man, and, b) it not being exactly possible to not participate in the class struggle; if we cannot escape capitalism then we cannot escape class struggle either. I think the real complaint here is a perceived refusal to sacrifice oneself to work and ideology, even though the latter is completely assumed. This kind of martyr mentality of militants and activists drives me mad and I don't think it is at all communist or revolutionary, far from it, it is distinctly capitalist. When an individual hints at refusing their role in the spectacle of opposition you can always rely on socialist and anarchist ideologues to chastise them for it.

That was kind of evident from the fact that "he got into Buddhism" as the basis of his argument and because of the "he doesn't do anything" in reply to the question whether or not he did volunteer work. I am indeed making an assumption...but I am not entirely sure how familiar you are with Buddhism....because it is a very educated assumption.

If you use the definition of class struggle in the sense that everything is class struggle then yeah...sure...being alive is participating in the class struggle. Which is next to a complete and utterly useless definition in any debate.

What does matter though is how you participate in the class struggle and I think that, using your definition of class struggle, doing so by exploiting the system as lumpen en rejecting participation in contributing in society is exploitative, reactionary and petit-bourgeoisie in mentality.

I think the man's a lowlife for fathering a child and not paying support--not for being on welfare. Though people on welfare don't exactly live to the common ("1st world") standard, neither do single working mothers. Living off welfare is neither revolutionary nor problematic to revolutionaries. That said, I am a firm believer that laziness is the prime motivator in all that we call "progress" (of the means of production, at least) and a "good work ethic" is a fatal flaw in any individual communist.

The equation you make is completely flawed imo when you generalize to "people living on welfare". There are a huge amount of reasons to live on welfare that require no justification whatsoever...but the one exception to this is deciding to do so out of selfish reasons without it being necessary or without compensating this self chosen withdrawal by in some way contributing your amply free time to the community (whether family, local, regional or whatever).

More generally speaking...about refusal to work in a broader context:

There is also a difference between good work ethics, laziness and obligation to contribute. Any and all revolutionary notions of he refusal to work ideology at least base themselves on the aspiration of actually using the free time to contribute something, anything to the advancement of the community and society. Which is in line with revolutionary Marxist and Anarchists thought about how society should function.

In my opinion individual refusal to work is just about as useful as raising your middle finger to somebody who drives a BMW in the sense of class struggle and about as revolutionary as spitting on the side walk when a cop passes...and egocentric in its core value.

That said...the assumption of not participating in a capitalist mode of production can arguably be valid from a non-Marxist perspective (hence why Marx rejected the notion)...which is why it is mostly propagated by Autonomists and post-Marxists and certain Anarchists...but is only useful in a sense that actually harms the system itself when it is done en masse and even then the revolutionary value of the act in the sense of actually restructuring society is extremely limited.

human strike

8th February 2014, 19:11

robbo203

8th February 2014, 19:40

So basically he is exploiting the tax system to continue his lifestyle...which in effect means free money over the backs of the working class tax payers at their expense in order to gain self gratification. In that case I'd say it is pretty egotistical.

I think it is important to undertand that workers do not really pay taxes and that it is really only the employing class that does so. On the face of it this might seem absurd. Is it not the case that on your wages slip it is clearly indicated that a certain amount of tax is deducted from your monthly or weekly gross earnings leaving you with a net income? Well , yes, there no denying that. However, the argument that workers do not pay taxes is an argument about the underlying economic reality of capitalism; it is not about appearances. It is about which class the actual burden of taxation falls upon in the final analysis.

The price of a worker's labour power is the real wage or salary that he or she receives in hand , not the nominal or gross figure that appears on the payslip, before these various deductions are made. That these deductions are made in an accountant's sense is not disputed; the point is what they actually signify. In reality, they indirectly form part of the tax burden born by the capitalist class which the workers appear to be paying themselves but for which, in effect, allowance has already been made in the form of an increase in the nominal wage over and above what the workers would otherwise have got. This was clearly recognised by the economist, David Ricardo, who made this observation in his The Principles of Political Economy and Taxation (1817):

Taxes on wages will raise wages, and therefore will diminish the rate of profit of the profits of stock...a tax on wages is wholly a tax on profits; a tax on necessaries is partly a tax on profits and partly a tax on rich consumers. The ultimate effects which will result from such taxes, then, are precisely the same as those which result from a direct tax on profits (The Market System Must Go!, SPGB pamphlet, 1997, p.31)

Marx too made the same point:

'If all taxes which bear on the working class were abolished root and branch, the necessary consequence would be the reduction of wages by the whole amount of taxes which today goes into them. Either the employers’ profit would rise as a direct consequence by the same quantity, or else no more than an alteration in the form of tax-collecting would have taken place. Instead of the present system, whereby the capitalist also advances, as part of the wage, the taxes which the worker has to pay, the capitalist would no longer pay them in this roundabout way, but directly to the state... For the bourgeoisie the way in which taxes are distributed and levied, and the use to which they are put are a vital question on account of its influence on trade and industry' (1847, Moralising Criticism and Critical Morality).

And, for a final example, one might refer, surprisingly enough, to a discussion paper on the website of the United Kingdom Independence party by Godfrey Bloom, an ex-UKIP MEP:

‘Like VAT there is a general failure to distinguish the mechanics of the tax’s calculation from its incidence (who actually bears it). Tax under PAYE is calculated by reference to a purely notional figure called ‘gross pay’, which no employed person in history has ever seen, let alone touched or spent. The employee’s real income is of course the net pay; and that amount of tax which has been ‘deducted’ is always the employer’s liability, to be remitted by the employer to HMRC in full, every month. As with VAT, the employers are the de facto tax-collectors. In this case they are also the tax-payers!’
(https://www.ukip.org/issues-2/policy-pages/tax)

Bloom concludes by arguing that appearances should be brought into line with reality; corporations should be directly taxed on a part of their profits on the grounds that ‘taxable capacity is a corporate, not an individual, concept. The employed individual has no taxable capacity.’

I think he is quite correct in that regard

consuming negativity

8th February 2014, 19:45

What does matter though is how you participate in the class struggle and I think that, using your definition of class struggle, doing so by exploiting the system as lumpen en rejecting participation in contributing in society is exploitative, reactionary and petit-bourgeoisie in mentality.

I cut off much of your post because I wanted to reply to this idea.

First and foremost, how is exploiting a system that we want to destroy in any way a bad thing? You could just as easily argue that the entirety of RevLeft is counter-revolutionary because we want to get rid of the welfare system that provides some help to the poor. But that would sound ridiculous. Even a social democrat or *gags* conservative has enough sense to say "well, if you apply for it and get accepted, why not take it?"

How on earth do you equate a personal rejection of participating in paid, exploitative work with a rejection of contributing to "society"? Moreover, if this society is shitty and capitalist, could I not make an equally valid claim that to participate in it and help it function is "reactionary" in mentality? I don't believe that, but to me it seems like an opposite but equally silly statement to make.

Using the logic you've applied to this thread, I don't even see how you've managed to come to the conclusion that anarchism or socialism in general is a solution to the problem. I'm not trying to so-leftister-than-thou, but ironically, I think the point you're making right now stems from some leftover bourgeois morality regarding work ethic and the welfare system.

Moreover, I think that one of the most compelling points behind the ideology of Marx is his insistence that by embracing the whole of humanity, we better ourselves and all benefit personally and are able to become better versions of the people that we are. We aren't individual cells in a body that can die off or be left behind at any moment to be replaced; if communism would only serve some vague "society" and make everybody in it miserable, I'd reject it without a second thought.

PhoenixAsh

8th February 2014, 19:58

I think he is quite correct in that regard

That is exactly how the system works. I approach the whole subject with a lot more banality from the opposite side by simply stating that all taxes are ultimately created by the exploitation of workers regardless of the economics involved.

PhoenixAsh

8th February 2014, 20:17

I cut off much of your post because I wanted to reply to this idea.

First and foremost, how is exploiting a system that we want to destroy in any way a bad thing? You could just as easily argue that the entirety of RevLeft is counter-revolutionary because we want to get rid of the welfare system that provides some help to the poor. But that would sound ridiculous. Even a social democrat or *gags* conservative has enough sense to say "well, if you apply for it and get accepted, why not take it?"

How on earth do you equate a personal rejection of participating in paid, exploitative work with a rejection of contributing to "society"? Moreover, if this society is shitty and capitalist, could I not make an equally valid claim that to participate in it and help it function is "reactionary" in mentality? I don't believe that, but to me it seems like an opposite but equally silly statement to make.

Well that is mainly because you snipped a lot of the post away and left out an important part of what I said.

but the one exception to this is deciding to do so out of selfish reasons without it being necessary or without compensating this self chosen withdrawal by in some way contributing your amply free time to the community (whether family, local, regional or whatever).

The debate is not developing in a vacuum and is still broadly framed in the individual choice of the person mentioned by the OP. That is what I reacted to in the post you quote.

Second I think you need to realize that there ultimately is no free money...somebody somewhere is paying for it and as it so happens...I think that is the working class. Exploiting the system is invariably exploiting the working class...and for me the idea of distancing yourself from the production process is 1). untrue 2). basically the same as saying "o fine...I'll let other people pay for me so I have to do fuck all"

That last part...is important.

We are not talking about a legitimate form of needing welfare. We are talking about somebody just not willing to provide for themselves. Which in itself would also not be a problem...if they contribute to the community in another way.

In contrast...I would not object in any way if somebody would decide to go on welfare or benefits and devote their time either entirely or partially by doing volunteer work or helping others or simply stays home to provide for kids or sick people...or whatever.

Using the logic you've applied to this thread, I don't even see how you've managed to come to the conclusion that anarchism or socialism in general is a solution to the problem. I'm not trying to so-leftister-than-thou, but ironically, I think the point you're making right now stems from some leftover bourgeois morality regarding work ethic and the welfare system.

Actually I think I have demonstrated quite clearly that the main paradigm of Marxism and Anarchism reject the notion of withdrawal from participation and actually demand it. I have based myself on Marx's position and words , those of Kropotkin (as the basis of Anarchist theory) and the accepted paradigm of socialism earlier in this thread. Which you might have missed. I wouldn't call those left overs from bourgeois mentality.

Moreover, I think that one of the most compelling points behind the ideology of Marx is his insistence that by embracing the whole of humanity, we better ourselves and all benefit personally and are able to become better versions of the people that we are. We aren't individual cells in a body that can die off or be left behind at any moment to be replaced; if communism would only serve some vague "society" and make everybody in it miserable, I'd reject it without a second thought.

That is way to esoteric for me and having read Marx's work...I am not entirely sure if this is the main point of what you can take away from Marx....least of all when applied to the specific situation at hand....and his rejection of the refusal of work ideology.

PhoenixAsh

8th February 2014, 20:23

Wow, lumpen AND petit bourgeois! lol

Yeah...by all means do read what was written.

Deciding to extract yourself from the production process and refusing to work make you Lumpen Proletariat. This self chosen extraction from production process and therefore class shift as some form of rebellion against the system is in effect a result of petit-bourgeois mentality.

consuming negativity

8th February 2014, 21:29

Well that is mainly because you snipped a lot of the post away and left out an important part of what I said.

but the one exception to this is deciding to do so out of selfish reasons without it being necessary or without compensating this self chosen withdrawal by in some way contributing your amply free time to the community (whether family, local, regional or whatever).

The debate is not developing in a vacuum and is still broadly framed in the individual choice of the person mentioned by the OP. That is what I reacted to in the post you quote.

Second I think you need to realize that there ultimately is no free money...somebody somewhere is paying for it and as it so happens...I think that is the working class. Exploiting the system is invariably exploiting the working class...and for me the idea of distancing yourself from the production process is 1). untrue 2). basically the same as saying "o fine...I'll let other people pay for me so I have to do fuck all"

That last part...is important.

We are not talking about a legitimate form of needing welfare. We are talking about somebody just not willing to provide for themselves. Which in itself would also not be a problem...if they contribute to the community in another way.

In contrast...I would not object in any way if somebody would decide to go on welfare or benefits and devote their time either entirely or partially by doing volunteer work or helping others or simply stays home to provide for kids or sick people...or whatever.

Actually I think I have demonstrated quite clearly that the main paradigm of Marxism and Anarchism reject the notion of withdrawal from participation and actually demand it. I have based myself on Marx's position and words , those of Kropotkin (as the basis of Anarchist theory) and the accepted paradigm of socialism earlier in this thread. Which you might have missed. I wouldn't call those left overs from bourgeois mentality.

That is way to esoteric for me and having read Marx's work...I am not entirely sure if this is the main point of what you can take away from Marx....least of all when applied to the specific situation at hand....and his rejection of the refusal of work ideology.

I never really came out in favor of the OP so much as just saying "his choices are his and that's fine with me", but now that I've gotten involved I'm going to read the whole thing and reply to the main point.

You're right insofar as that I certainly wouldn't consider his behavior revolutionary. But then if I were to judge people based on how revolutionary their behavior was, again, it would be extremely easy for me to nitpick the lives of every one of us and take a big dump on everyone for having done or continue to do something that isn't helping the struggle. Going to work, for example. How am I helping the working class by working my shitty no-benefits job? But you wouldn't look down on me for doing that, in the same way I wouldn't look down on the man in the OP for refusing to do that.

You might want to say that "well, you're not stealing from the working class via welfare", and my retort would be that it is impossible to escape the system that we live in, which in some way will always require workers to steal from each other. For example, going to buy a shirt at any store is going to be cheating the laborers who made that shirt somewhere in the third world. But I have to buy shirts, or else I can't even meet my most basic needs of not freezing to death every time I go outside. Wherein lies the difference?

We live in the capitalist system and you're right that we cannot escape the society we live in. Which makes my point all the more relevant that everybody will handle that truth in their own way. I'm much less concerned about the OP than the millions of actual capitalist (in the ideological sense) reactionaries that exist. But it's important to point out that you can't know that the man in the OP will not provide for himself under a fair system; all you know is his rejection of this system and his lack of being a communist.

human strike

8th February 2014, 23:43

That is exactly how the system works. I approach the whole subject with a lot more banality from the opposite side by simply stating that all taxes are ultimately created by the exploitation of workers regardless of the economics involved.

So are you against shoplifting too?

Yeah...by all means do read what was written.

Deciding to extract yourself from the production process and refusing to work make you Lumpen Proletariat. This self chosen extraction from production process and therefore class shift as some form of rebellion against the system is in effect a result of petit-bourgeois mentality.

Calling your opponent in a debate lumpen and petit bourgeois, isn't that like the equivalent of Godwin's Law of the revolutionary left? I read what you wrote, I just think it doesn't warrant reply.

PhoenixAsh

8th February 2014, 23:54

So are you against shoplifting too?

Calling your opponent in a debate lumpen and petit bourgeois, isn't that like the equivalent of Godwin's Law of the revolutionary left? I read what you wrote, I just think it doesn't warrant reply.

And yet you replied :rolleyes:

I also think you are very confused about who my opponent in this debate is.

human strike

9th February 2014, 00:02

And yet you replied :rolleyes:

I also think you are very confused about who my opponent in this debate is.

Fair shout.

PhoenixAsh

9th February 2014, 00:08

I never really came out in favor of the OP so much as just saying "his choices are his and that's fine with me", but now that I've gotten involved I'm going to read the whole thing and reply to the main point.

You're right insofar as that I certainly wouldn't consider his behavior revolutionary. But then if I were to judge people based on how revolutionary their behavior was, again, it would be extremely easy for me to nitpick the lives of every one of us and take a big dump on everyone for having done or continue to do something that isn't helping the struggle. Going to work, for example. How am I helping the working class by working my shitty no-benefits job? But you wouldn't look down on me for doing that, in the same way I wouldn't look down on the man in the OP for refusing to do that.

The question of OP was what do you think and is this helpful...on a revolutionary forum.

The answer I gave is: No. It isn't helpful and it is even hurtful. He does not extract himself for the production process. He does extract himself from the class struggle. He exploits it and in doing so he exploits workers. He does this for his own benefits while not providing for those who now are unduly burdened by his choices. And he doesn't contribute to the community.

That goes a little further than judging on how revolutionary somebody is.

The main theories of Marxism, Socialism and Anarchism also oppose the decision he made and theoretically such acts are disapproved.

You might want to say that "well, you're not stealing from the working class via welfare", and my retort would be that it is impossible to escape the system that we live in, which in some way will always require workers to steal from each other. For example, going to buy a shirt at any store is going to be cheating the laborers who made that shirt somewhere in the third world. But I have to buy shirts, or else I can't even meet my most basic needs of not freezing to death every time I go outside. Wherein lies the difference?

Fair enough. That is actually a very good argument. Except...he is no longer part of the working class.

We live in the capitalist system and you're right that we cannot escape the society we live in. Which makes my point all the more relevant that everybody will handle that truth in their own way. I'm much less concerned about the OP than the millions of actual capitalist (in the ideological sense) reactionaries that exist. But it's important to point out that you can't know that the man in the OP will not provide for himself under a fair system; all you know is his rejection of this system and his lack of being a communist.

We also know he does nothing. Does not contribute to the community and does not provide economic or direct support for his ex or his child.

I know every body handles the truth in their own way. That however does not mean we have to accept this without argument and shrug it off. Some people for example decide that it is their truth that fascism is a viable option to the system. That is their truth. Doesn't mean we shouldn't oppose such thinking. After all...revolutionary in the leftist sense is we fight false class consciousness. Some acts of false class consciousness maybe more dangerous and urgent...nevertheless...we are discussing this one now.

Axiomasher

13th February 2014, 08:37

...

What does matter though is how you participate in the class struggle and I think that, using your definition of class struggle, doing so by exploiting the system as lumpen en rejecting participation in contributing in society is exploitative, reactionary and petit-bourgeoisie in mentality.

...

The economic and ideological forces of capitalism are strong, are they not? Humans are a product of their conditions are they not? It is hardly controversial to suggest that sometimes the economic and ideological power of capitalism gets the better of an individual and their capacity to respond is limited to withdrawal. I'm trying to come at the issue from a scientific perspective rather than an emotional one. People do what is necessary to them and what they regard as necessary is not picked from the aether but generated by real forces.

Separately, I'm also sceptical about the idea that those who withdraw are in any special sense 'exploitative' without this also characterising those who work for the capitalist class (which is most of us) as 'exploitative' (of themselves and everyone else) and, indeed, supporting the capitalist class by doing their labour. The fact is we're in a bind and we're damned if we do and damned if we don't. If all of us decided to withdraw at the same time, capitalism would collapse just as readily as if all of us decided to revolt at the same time.

PhoenixAsh

13th February 2014, 11:42

The economic and ideological forces of capitalism are strong, are they not? Humans are a product of their conditions are they not? It is hardly controversial to suggest that sometimes the economic and ideological power of capitalism gets the better of an individual and their capacity to respond is limited to withdrawal. I'm trying to come at the issue from a scientific perspective rather than an emotional one. People do what is necessary to them and what they regard as necessary is not picked from the aether but generated by real forces.

Separately, I'm also sceptical about the idea that those who withdraw are in any special sense 'exploitative' without this also characterising those who work for the capitalist class (which is most of us) as 'exploitative' (of themselves and everyone else) and, indeed, supporting the capitalist class by doing their labour. The fact is we're in a bind and we're damned if we do and damned if we don't. If all of us decided to withdraw at the same time, capitalism would collapse just as readily as if all of us decided to revolt at the same time.

In a sense we all are. But that is the basis of society. Those who own the means of production exploit those who only have their labour to sell to survive.

Now...we condemn scabs don't we? When somebody sells his or her labour cheap or breaks a strike to continue work. We condemn this. Why? I understand their motivation. I understand that they need to survive and need to work in order to earn money. Yet we, rightly, condemn those who do because of the fact that they are opposing the class struggle and take advantage of the system.

Understanding does not equate condoning.

I understand somebody wants to withdraw in any way he or she can from society. And I understand why. But that doesn't mean it should be condoned.

Axiomasher

13th February 2014, 16:05

In a sense we all are. But that is the basis of society. Those who own the means of production exploit those who only have their labour to sell to survive.

Now...we condemn scabs don't we? When somebody sells his or her labour cheap or breaks a strike to continue work. We condemn this. Why? I understand their motivation. I understand that they need to survive and need to work in order to earn money. Yet we, rightly, condemn those who do because of the fact that they are opposing the class struggle and take advantage of the system.

Understanding does not equate condoning.

I understand somebody wants to withdraw in any way he or she can from society. And I understand why. But that doesn't mean it should be condoned.

If we work for the capitalist class we are (even if very reluctantly) supporting their continued hegemony, that much I think we can agree on. Withdrawal may not amount to a revolutionary act but some credit is due as it is a) an act in rejection of capitalism's expectations and b) an act which has the potential to hurt capitalism (as I've already suggested, if we were all to merely withdraw in the same instant capitalism would collapse). I take your point that mere withdrawal of the individual and nothing more easily places a greater burden on those who rely upon capitalism's meagre redistributions (through taxation) than it does on capitalism itself. But that argument carries a strange logic in which we should continue to support capitalism with our labours if only to ensure that we contribute to the meagre redistributions it cynically offers up to the needy, the very same meagre redistribution intended to keep us from revolutionary change. I don't think there's an easy answer to this one save that I'm not prepared to condemn someone for failing to turn their rejection of capitalism into something more virtuous. I'm not prepared to do so on the basis that not everyone has the strength of will to live up to something more, their lack of strength in no small measure easily a consequence of capitalism's pernicious psychological effects.

I apologise if you've already addressed a point already raised by someone else but I am curious to know where you stand on the issue of shoplifting.

Jimmie Higgins

13th February 2014, 17:49

Nobody made work ethics analogous. The statement that I made was simple:

Choosing to live on welfare while you are able to work and at the same time not contributing in any meaningful way to either the community or the advancement of class struggle is thoroughly bourgeoisie and reactionary.

This is founded in socialist principle; both Marxist and Anarchist. And both for political, economic and moral reasons should be rejected.i absolutely agree that in terms of a political strategy, individually withdrawing from wage labor out of political preference, comes out of a kind of middle class view (though people doing this can be from any class) and actually relies on other people remaining exploited (in other words it doesn't actually alter anything, capital is not weaker, labor is not stronger). So people who choose to go off the grid tend to develop a "steeple" attitude about those who do or must continue working (at least that has been what I've seen anecdotally).

However in a u.s. Context at least, I think it's problematic to say that this activity is "exploitative" because the whole concept of any relief for workers is under attack. And for those pushed out of the workforce or unable to work in the u.s., gaming the system is practically a necessity because the relief itself doesn't cover the basics. (This is also probably my only "moral" problem with "dropping out" attitudes: I have a knee-jerk dislike of it because I think it often romanticizes a life most people in the u.s. Do not choose... It's kinda elitist or privileged or something.)

In fact the socialist position has always been that the notion welfare itself was bourgeoisie and that exploiting that welfare was bourgeoisie attitude.i do not have that view, I see it as a useful class demand/reform. Welfare is a bourgeois "non-.solution" to poverty, since it leaves the source of modern poverty intact. But as a class reform it allows workers as a class to remove a certain amount of class competition for jobs and can make people less desperate to accept any conditions at work. It can also help in organizing because being fired becomes less of a worry.

What would be interesting though is to hear the reactions of the very same refusal to contribute/work during the DOTP or after the DOTP.well I thnk a starting point of dotp is providing a basic level of necessities for everyone no matter what... We do not live in absolute scarcity and a working class in power would not need to make people starve in order for them to engage in (non alienated, democratic, more pleasant and humane conditions) productive activities. If people choose not to contribute, I think that social shaming, ostracization, and maybe restrictions on non-essential good or services might happen, but IMO there's more problems for a dotp to just keep people desperate, than to provide a the necessities of life to a moocher.

Edit: and I think the scab analogy is wrong too. Scabs are actively undermining efforts by workers to directly win concessions from the boss. Turning your back on class struggle is not helpful but it is not the same as sabotaging our side in direct conflicts.

PhoenixAsh

14th February 2014, 06:49

I have little time to reply to all.

So I will have to do that later.

Lets just say that welfare and aid is completely normal and fine when you are pushed out of the system, become unemployed, unemploayble, sick, or othewise have obligations which prevent somebody from working.

I don’t even bat an eyelash when somebody is on welfare or aid if they voluntarilly chose this...when they perform services to the community...like volunteer work in all its forms for example.

Comrade #138672

14th February 2014, 07:31

I agree with almost everything said by LinksRadikal.

PhoenixAsh

14th February 2014, 08:00

If we work for the capitalist class we are (even if very reluctantly) supporting their continued hegemony, that much I think we can agree on. Withdrawal may not amount to a revolutionary act but some credit is due as it is a) an act in rejection of capitalism's expectations and b) an act which has the potential to hurt capitalism (as I've already suggested, if we were all to merely withdraw in the same instant capitalism would collapse). I take your point that mere withdrawal of the individual and nothing more easily places a greater burden on those who rely upon capitalism's meagre redistributions (through taxation) than it does on capitalism itself. But that argument carries a strange logic in which we should continue to support capitalism with our labours if only to ensure that we contribute to the meagre redistributions it cynically offers up to the needy, the very same meagre redistribution intended to keep us from revolutionary change. I don't think there's an easy answer to this one save that I'm not prepared to condemn someone for failing to turn their rejection of capitalism into something more virtuous. I'm not prepared to do so on the basis that not everyone has the strength of will to live up to something more, their lack of strength in no small measure easily a consequence of capitalism's pernicious psychological effects.

I apologise if you've already addressed a point already raised by someone else but I am curious to know where you stand on the issue of shoplifting.

The point is it isn't rejecting capitalism. Welfare is part of the capitalist mode of production and necessary for it to keep functioning. As such welfare is another form of exploitation and completely legitimizes and prolongs the exploitative state of capitalism.

PhoenixAsh

14th February 2014, 08:12

i absolutely agree that in terms of a political strategy, individually withdrawing from wage labor out of political preference, comes out of a kind of middle class view (though people doing this can be from any class) and actually relies on other people remaining exploited (in other words it doesn't actually alter anything, capital is not weaker, labor is not stronger). So people who choose to go off the grid tend to develop a "steeple" attitude about those who do or must continue working (at least that has been what I've seen anecdotally).

We agree on this. Although in some cases going of the gird has legitimate reasons. But I think we both agree on that too.

However in a u.s. Context at least, I think it's problematic to say that this activity is "exploitative" because the whole concept of any relief for workers is under attack. And for those pushed out of the workforce or unable to work in the u.s., gaming the system is practically a necessity because the relief itself doesn't cover the basics. (This is also probably my only "moral" problem with "dropping out" attitudes: I have a knee-jerk dislike of it because I think it often romanticizes a life most people in the u.s. Do not choose... It's kinda elitist or privileged or something.)

That is true. The main attack is the false presumption and assertion that most of those on welfare are misusing the system while this is actually only a very small number. The same however goes for just about every country with a welfare system...not just the US.

That said...I think we all agree that the fast majority of people who use the welfare system are using it because they absolutely have to. I do not object to a welfare system at all...even want it to be expanded and made more flexible. I don't even think it should be enforced. However....when people openly state they choose to be on welfare because they just don't want to work...well...I condemn that attitude unless they somehow provide a service for their family or the larger community.

i do not have that view, I see it as a useful class demand/reform. Welfare is a bourgeois "non-.solution" to poverty, since it leaves the source of modern poverty intact. But as a class reform it allows workers as a class to remove a certain amount of class competition for jobs and can make people less desperate to accept any conditions at work. It can also help in organizing because being fired becomes less of a worry.

Fair enough.

well I thnk a starting point of dotp is providing a basic level of necessities for everyone no matter what... We do not live in absolute scarcity and a working class in power would not need to make people starve in order for them to engage in (non alienated, democratic, more pleasant and humane conditions) productive activities. If people choose not to contribute, I think that social shaming, ostracization, and maybe restrictions on non-essential good or services might happen, but IMO there's more problems for a dotp to just keep people desperate, than to provide a the necessities of life to a moocher.

We agree. Although in DOTP and post DOTP I think a lot of opinions would be reversed in this thread.

Edit: and I think the scab analogy is wrong too. Scabs are actively undermining efforts by workers to directly win concessions from the boss. Turning your back on class struggle is not helpful but it is not the same as sabotaging our side in direct conflicts.

Scab as a term has been applied to those who do not participate in a strike. It doesn't only refer to workers hired after the strike started. So in that context...workers would't get paid on strike. The unions provided some form of union aid to provide for food but the simple choice was: work or don't eat. So originally the term applied for those who simply did not partake in the class struggle but continued to be part of the system. In that respect the analogy is imo perfectly acceptable.