"He who does not work, neither shall he eat"

[Theta Sigma]

Just come across this phrase. I strongly, strongly disagree with it.

Was this only preached by Leninism and, therefore, state-socialism and state-communism?

I consider myself something of an anarcho-communist, and I believe in a stateless society, and egalitarianism therein. I don't believe that work should be a precursor to life.

[tachosomoza]

It's biblical. From a Bronze Age society where everyone was involved in some way, shape or form with agriculture and was expected to do their fair share of labor to contribute to the community's welfare.

I agree though, it's remarkably cruel to allow the sick and the elderly and the disabled to starve to death while you tolerate nobility and owners who do no labor, yet eat better than a worker.

[Ele'ill]

There are several threads on this topic, none currently though. They usually turn out pretty nasty and basically divided between those of us who desire the abolition of work and do not really care if large sections of current civilization/society are destroyed and those here who want to hang onto it and manage it.

[Theta Sigma]

It's biblical. From a Bronze Age society where everyone was involved in some way, shape or form with agriculture and was expected to do their fair share of labor to contribute to the community's welfare.

I agree though, it's remarkably cruel to allow the sick and the elderly and the disabled to starve to death while you tolerate nobility and owners who do no labor, yet eat better than a worker.

Quite so. For instance, when I was severely depressed, I simply could not work. It seems Lenin wouldn't have liked that.

Regardless, I just think the first principle of life should be happiness and kindness, and, therefore, love. Work should be secondary, and only if your life allows for it. Since under communism people would have the incentive to work anyway at only an hour or so each day since the production of tat would be abolished, most would be working towards providing food, energy etc. for the community, there would be more people available to do important work.

What I envisage is that under such a society, personal activities like sportsperson, musician, academic etc. wouldn't be careers (well of course they wouldn't, but you get my meaning; they wouldn't be considered jobs), they'd be involved in leisure time, which would be most of the time. Work would be the necessities of providing for the community, but one would not be expected to take part in such activities at the cost of one's own life, and one would not have to work every day.


There are several threads on this topic, none currently though. They usually turn out pretty nasty and basically divided between those of us who desire the abolition of work and do not really care if large sections of current civilization/society are destroyed and those here who want to hang onto it and manage it.

Oh, forgive me if this turns out the same! I did attempt to use the search function.

Sorry, I didn't realise they could turn out that way.

[Alan OldStudent]

Just come across this phrase. I strongly, strongly disagree with it.

Was this only preached by Leninism and, therefore, state-socialism and state-communism?

I consider myself something of an anarcho-communist, and I believe in a stateless society, and egalitarianism therein. I don't believe that work should be a precursor to life.

It was originally in the Bible. Check this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/He_who_does_not_work,_neither_shall_he_eat) Wikipedia article out for a bit of historical context.

Regards,

Alan OldStudent
The unexamined life is not worth living—Socrates
Gracias a la vida, que me ha dado tanto—Violeta Parra

[Per Levy]

Was this only preached by Leninism and, therefore, state-socialism and state-communism?

not only, as far as i know it was a thing in the 2. international as the spd used that slogan against the upperclass, because the upperclass wasnt working and lived from the work of the workers.

interestingly a spd minister used that slogan in the late 2000s in wich he used that slogan against unemployed workers, wich, again, tells you a lot about the spd.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

I sympathize with your misgivings, comrade.

I should point out, however, that Lenin was aiming this phrase not at 'unproductive' workers, but at the rich bourgeoisie who thought themselves too good to work with their hands.

In a proper socialist society, people will recognize that unproductivity from a worker is not neccessarily out of laziness, but out of personal troubles or lack of motivation. Such a worker should be comforted and encouraged, and to be shown that they are worth a great deal to the people.

[Ele'ill]

In a proper socialist society, people will recognize that unproductivity from a worker is not neccessarily....

unproductivity.




out of laziness, but out of personal troubles or lack of motivation.

Or because of laziness because my personal troubles are reliving the same world of production where I am still a worker that should have been destroyed the first time around where not living it and serving it means I don't eat which is my sole motivation for living and existing as that role.





Such a worker should be comforted and encouraged, and to be shown that they are worth a great deal to the people.

ugh

[Theta Sigma]

It was originally in the Bible. Check this Wikipedia article out for a bit of historical context.

Yep, that's where I first came across the term. :)


not only, as far as i know it was a thing in the 2. international as the spd used that slogan against the upperclass, because the upperclass wasnt working and lived from the work of the workers.

interestingly a spd minister used that slogan in the late 2000s in wich he used that slogan against unemployed workers, wich, again, tells you a lot about the spd.

Ah! Little bit more reasonable then... until that latter point. Ugh.


I sympathize with your misgivings, comrade.

I should point out, however, that Lenin was aiming this phrase not at 'unproductive' workers, but at the rich bourgeoisie who thought themselves too good to work with their hands.

In a proper socialist society, people will recognize that unproductivity from a worker is not neccessarily out of laziness, but out of personal troubles or lack of motivation. Such a worker should be comforted and encouraged, and to be shown that they are worth a great deal to the people.

Thanks for the point about Lenin!

I agree completely.

[The Intransigent Faction]

I don't believe that work should be a precursor to life.

Well, it is, in a sense. It's just that it shouldn't be and does not need to be "the" motivator for labour, but the necessity to keep making stuff/growing food/etc. means the common reactionary "argument" that, as Marx put it, "universal laziness" will be a trend in an egalitarian society is just absurd.

As for the quote itself, though, yeah it's pretty bad.

I don't know if Left-Communists addressed the issue of those simply unable to work for physical or psychological reasons, but I would imagine they did.

I suppose you could present it as a rephrasing of Marx & Engels ("Those who work do not acquire anything, and those who acquire anything do not work" or something to that effect). I'd always thought this was a reference to "rationing", though, given that Russia in the early Soviet years was hardly the sort of materially abundant society (indeed it could not be for reasons beyond Lenin's culpability or control) which would contain conditions for a post-scarcity economy after the revolution.

How exactly were disabled workers treated in the earlier times of the USSR, anyway? I read about it somewhere, but it's slipped my mind and all I can think of is the Gorbachev era (yuck!) in which they refused to host the Paralympics because "There are no invalids in the USSR". I would imagine it was not any better in the Civil War or inter-war or "Great Patriotic War" period, even perhaps for those disabled in the fighting.

[BIXX]

I'm in the "abolish work" camp here- I'm a vulgar individualist.

I only would do work if I was unable to eat otherwise. I don't know, sounds kinda pathetic to me that we go through all that revolution shit just to have what is essentially the same life give to us- work or die,

[Dagoth Ur]

The revolution isn't about your want to be lazy. It is about freeing humanity from the excesses of exploitation. This doesn't mean our project ends and we all just drift about doing whatever. It means we work and we fucking like it because alienation has been taken out of the fucking equation. Revolution is not for a goddamn bourgeoisie leisure lifestyle.

Dammit the level of laziness encouragement in this thread is infuriating.

[BIXX]

The revolution isn't about your want to be lazy. It is about freeing humanity from the excesses of exploitation. This doesn't mean our project ends and we all just drift about doing whatever. It means we work and we fucking like it because alienation has been taken out of the fucking equation. Revolution is not for a goddamn bourgeoisie leisure lifestyle.

Dammit the level of laziness encouragement in this thread is infuriating.

The abolition of work has never had anything to do with laziness. Someone may be lazy, but that's not what the abolition of work is at all.

[Theta Sigma]

Well, it is, in a sense. It's just that it shouldn't be and does not need to be "the" motivator for labour, but the necessity to keep making stuff/growing food/etc. means the common reactionary "argument" that, as Marx put it, "universal laziness" will be a trend in an egalitarian society is just absurd.

As for the quote itself, though, yeah it's pretty bad.

I don't know if Left-Communists addressed the issue of those simply unable to work for physical or psychological reasons, but I would imagine they did.

It's certainly a necessity for a collectivist society that some form of communal work be undertaken in order to provide for the community. Just as, if I do retreat into hermitry, I will work to grow my own food outside my cave out in the wilderness of the Calder Valley. :D So yeah, I think what I'm getting at is that work shouldn't need to be completed so that one can live in the sense that if we don't earn money we are not even permitted to have shelter, which is absurd. Rather, the alienation should be abolished, and one should be presented with the opportunity to work in order to provide for oneself and the community, but one would not be forced into work if it were uncomfortable for the individual/unnecessary.


I'm in the "abolish work" camp here- I'm a vulgar individualist.

I only would do work if I was unable to eat otherwise. I don't know, sounds kinda pathetic to me that we go through all that revolution shit just to have what is essentially the same life give to us- work or die,

Yes, I'm in complete agreement with you, work should only be done out of necessity - that is, to contribute to the community in order to have the food, energy etc. required; I always imagine the communal food resource as a huge plot of fruit and vegetables, lush vegetation from trees to corn, from where everyone can obtain the food they need to survive, and where everyone can work together to grow the food necessary.

Because we wouldn't be working in ridiculous, unnecessary jobs, the amount of time required for work would be reduced dramatically, especially since the entire community would be available for necessary work.


The revolution isn't about your want to be lazy. It is about freeing humanity from the excesses of exploitation. This doesn't mean our project ends and we all just drift about doing whatever. It means we work and we fucking like it because alienation has been taken out of the fucking equation. Revolution is not for a goddamn bourgeoisie leisure lifestyle.

Dammit the level of laziness encouragement in this thread is infuriating.

I don't think there's any 'laziness encouragement' at all; the extension of leisure time is a premise common amongst Marxists. It doesn't advocate laziness, it's more about personal development, fulfilment of oneself, enjoyment of one's life. Of course, the intention is that work would become part of that enjoyment, but would not be as much of a necessity in a Marxist society, and as such, individual freedom would predominate.

[Dagoth Ur]

The Abolition of Work is a idealism barely worth paying attention to at all. People will always work, be it to make food, or get resources, etc.

I don't mean to pigeon-hole your particular beliefs but it sounds like you want to live off the state and do whatever you want in the mean.

[Theta Sigma]

The Abolition of Work is a idealism barely worth paying attention to at all. People will always work, be it to make food, or get resources, etc.

I don't mean to pigeon-hole your particular beliefs but it sounds like you want to live off the state and do whatever you want in the mean.
People will always work, I agree, I just disagree with the situation we have currently in the west, that to work seems to be the main reason to live; the earning of wages has become both the means and the end of living.

Obviously, in a fair communist society, everybody would contribute, I just don't think those who don't/can't should be condemned.

Life should, primarily, be about freedom. The abolition of work, collectively, is seemingly impossible. The minimisation of work is not, and should be a focus when working towards freedom.

[synthesis]

The Abolition of Work is a idealism barely worth paying attention to at all. People will always work, be it to make food, or get resources, etc.

I don't mean to pigeon-hole your particular beliefs but it sounds like you want to live off the state and do whatever you want in the mean.

How would one "live off the state" in a stateless society?

[Dagoth Ur]

How can you have a stateless society and not do work?

@theta sigma: From each according to HIS ABILITY, to each according to HIS NEED. It is a very simple maxim. And yes we will work less and get more for it but ending the division of labor and alienation will make us want to work all the time. If you enjoyed working, truly could get paid nothing to do it, you'd never want to stop.

[Pinto Morais]

Was this only preached by Leninism and, therefore, state-socialism and state-communism?



Nope. It was also preached by, at least, anarcho-syndicalists. I remember seeing it in a book about economic post-revolutionary organisation.
It seemed to be used as a slogan against the bourgeois class at the time.

[Dagoth Ur]

Labor Theory of Value at work.

Also free association? Capital flight ring a bell?

[bropasaran]

People on the tend to forget that communism isn't establishing "To each according to his need", it's "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need".

Bakunin gives a somewhat light-hearted approach on one side:


The freedom of adults of both sexes must be absolute and complete, freedom to come and go, to voice all opinions, to be lazy or active, moral or immoral, in short, to dispose of one’s person or possessions as one pleases, being accountable to no one. Freedom to live, be it honestly, by one’s own labor, even at the expense of individuals who voluntarily tolerate one’s exploitation.

But on the other side he mentions the very principle that this thread is about:


Everyone will have to work if they are to eat. Anyone refusing to work will be free to perish of hunger, unless they find some association or township prepared to feed them out of pity. But then it will probably be fair to grant them no political rights, since, capable of work, their shameful situation is of their own choosing and they are living off another person's labour.

Or even more harshly:


Labor being the sole source of wealth, everyone is free to die of hunger, or to live in the deserts or the forests among savage beasts, but whoever wants to live in society must earn his living by his own labor, or be treated as a parasite who is living on the labor of others.

Note that above he says "anyone refusing to work", so this obviosly doesn't apply on those who can't work. He says also:


Society cannot, however, leave itself completely defenseless against vicious and parasitic individuals. Work must be the basis of all political rights. The units of society, each within its own jurisdiction, can deprive all such antisocial adults of political rights (except the old, the sick, and those dependent on private or public subsidy) and will be obliged to restore their political rights as soon as they begin to live by their own labor.

Kropotkin mentions this in The Conquest of Bread:


To begin with, Is it not evident that if a society, founded on the principle of free work, were really menaced by loafers, it could protect itself without an authoritarian organization and without having recourse to wagedom?

Let us take a group of volunteers, combining for some particular enterprise. Having its success at heart, they all work with a will, save one of the associates, who is frequently absent from his post. Must they on his account dissolve the group, elect a president to impose fines, or maybe distribute markers for work done, as is customary in the Academy? It is evident that neither the one nor the other will be done, but that some day the comrade who imperils their enterprise will be told: "Friend, we should like to work with you; but as you are often absent from your post, and you do your work negligently, we must part. Go and find other comrades who will put up with your indifference!"

Note how he talks about this spontaneous disassociation from those who don't want to work or those who slack as an alternative to authoritarian measures or rating people's labor.

Makhno puts it nicely, mentioning both the point I made in the beginning of this message, and the objection about those who can't work:


That is the very point that our splendid anarchist principle is making. It proposes that every individual in proportion to their needs, provided that every individual places their powers and faculties in the service of society and not that he serve it not at all.

An exception will be made for the children, the elderly, the sick and the infirm. Rightly, society will excuse all such persons from the duty of labour, without denying them their entitlement to have all their needs met.

The moral sensibilities of the toilers' is deeply outraged by the principle of taking from society according to one's needs, while giving to it according to one's mood or not at all; toilers have suffered too long from the application of that absurd principle and that is why they are unbending on this point. Our feeling for justice and logic is also outraged at this principle.

[BIXX]

The Abolition of Work is a idealism barely worth paying attention to at all. People will always work, be it to make food, or get resources, etc.



I don't mean to pigeon-hole your particular beliefs but it sounds like you want to live off the state and do whatever you want in the mean.


You obviously haven't read any actual text on the abolition of work so until then kindly give your opinions elsewhere, where you might be more educated.

Bob Black, for all his bullshit (snitch and kinda a prick in general) has a really good piece on the abolition if work. (http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/bob-black-the-abolition-of-work)


Obviously, in a fair communist society, everybody would contribute, I just don't think those who don't/can't should be condemned.


You've echoed this basic sentiment throughout the thread- allow me to respond.

The abolition of work is about turning life into a game. Now, the game we play may not be frivolous, in fact it is a very serious game that we play. This is how (most of) the people who subscribe to the abolition of work see it. See above for the link to Bob Black's piece.

[Dagoth Ur]

So instead of work you call it a game. Wow, what insight.

You've still not addressed why work would be bad without alienation or division of labor.

[synthesis]

So instead of work you call it a game. Wow, what insight.

You've still not addressed why work would be bad without alienation or division of labor.

Compulsion.

I'd still like you to answer my question, if you're capable. How does one live off the state in a mode of production where the state no longer exists? And if the state no longer exists, how are people compelled to work? Your conception of communism seems to be very different from mine, petit-bourgeois in nature, as is that of "impossible." All we need to do is get rid of alienation and division of labor - literally the exact same complaints that the petite bourgeoisie has about proletarianization.

[Quail]

The point of a communist society is, at least as I see it, to minimise the "work" we do and free up time to develop ourselves as human beings. Now, a society needs to produce enough for everyone to be fed, sheltered, etc., and we need to maintain our environment - but if that work was shared communally it would take very little time which would leave use free to do the stuff we care about. Most "work" that isn't just useless toil for a wage is actually enjoyable and stuff that people would want to do. If all my basic needs were provided for, I would be happy to teach maths (for example) for free, and I would be happy to contribute towards making my community a nicer place to live, e.g. by gardening, growing veg, cleaning up, cooking for others etc. because I want to live in a nice, pretty place in a community where people value each other.

[BIXX]

Synthesis took the words right out of my mouth. Compulsion is the problem with work. All work, forever.

[BisexualCommunist]

Unless you have a legit problem that forces you to not be able to work whether it is pnysical, or mental, everyone that is able should work. People should only be given what they work for. Laziness will not be tolerated.

[Dagoth Ur]

You're compelled to keep living. I don't see you *****ing about that. :rolleyes:

[Quail]

You're compelled to keep living. I don't see you *****ing about that. :rolleyes:

Verbal warning for prejudiced language.

[BIXX]

You're compelled to keep living. I don't see you *****ing about that. :rolleyes:


Actually I'm not, I choose to keep living. Cause I like it.

[BIXX]

Unless you have a legit problem that forces you to not be able to work whether it is pnysical, or mental, everyone that is able should work. People should only be given what they work for. Laziness will not be tolerated.


Your society will not be tolerated.

[Buttscratcher]

Just come across this phrase. I strongly, strongly disagree with it.

Was this only preached by Leninism and, therefore, state-socialism and state-communism?

I consider myself something of an anarcho-communist, and I believe in a stateless society, and egalitarianism therein. I don't believe that work should be a precursor to life.

This is more directed towards those who want to take from society without feeling the obligation to contribute.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

This is more directed towards those who want to take from society without feeling the obligation to contribute.

Meaningless bloody nonsense is what that is; not just the expression but the very idea of this "contribution" and "receiving" in kind as if though some sort of exchange.

[BIXX]

This is more directed towards those who want to take from society without feeling the obligation to contribute.


I don't give a damn about society and in fact am against it- I'm not gonna contribute to that shit. Still, I won't let myself be starved out.

[Buttscratcher]

Meaningless bloody nonsense is what that is; not just the expression but the very idea of this "contribution" and "receiving" in kind as if though some sort of exchange.
What would be a better alternative though?

[BIXX]

What would be a better alternative though?


Say "fuck society"?

I direct you to Renzo Novatore...

"Every society you build will have its fringes, and on the fringes of every society, heroic and restless vagabonds will wander, with their wild and virgin thoughts, only able to live by preparing ever new and terrible outbreaks of rebellion!

I shall be among them!"

Fuck societies. I TAKE from society, and give nothing back to it. This doesn't mean I won't give to my friends, but society is something else entirely.

[Quail]

I think everyone will "contribute" to society in one form or another... I mean is it really anyone's dream situation to sit on the sofa doing nothing all day, every day? People contribute to society in loads of ways that aren't recognised or valued by the current economic system, such as supporting their friends and romantic partners, playing with/helping to raise children, etc. I find it hard to imagine someone wanting to do literally nothing with their life.

[BIXX]

I think everyone will "contribute" to society in one form or another... I mean is it really anyone's dream situation to sit on the sofa doing nothing all day, every day? People contribute to society in loads of ways that aren't recognised or valued by the current economic system, such as supporting their friends and romantic partners, playing with/helping to raise children, etc. I find it hard to imagine someone wanting to do literally nothing with their life.


I don't consider helping friends and loved ones the same as helping society, necessarily. They can coincide, but I don't think they are the same (never the same if those friends don't help society either).

[motion denied]

Fuck societies. I TAKE from society, and give nothing back to it.

/Ayn Rand

EDIT: Well, since mod rightfully warned me to avoid a one-liner, I'd like to know what 'anti-society' really entails.

Also, I hope we're keeping in mind that work is opposed to labour, right? (because there is no such difference in Portuguese, so sometimes it confuses me).

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

/Ayn Rand

That's not a very useful contribution and this is Learning, so, keep off with the two-word posts. At least make some kind of effort to make a sentence. This isn't fakebook or something.

[Quail]

I don't consider helping friends and loved ones the same as helping society, necessarily. They can coincide, but I don't think they are the same (never the same if those friends don't help society either).

Well I meant in the sense of providing mutual aid and support I guess. I also think that supporting people emotionally is an important part of a healthy community.

[Buttscratcher]

I think everyone will "contribute" to society in one form or another... I mean is it really anyone's dream situation to sit on the sofa doing nothing all day, every day? People contribute to society in loads of ways that aren't recognised or valued by the current economic system, such as supporting their friends and romantic partners, playing with/helping to raise children, etc. I find it hard to imagine someone wanting to do literally nothing with their life.
I agree with what you're saying, but I think the "he who does not work neither shall he eat" policy was a good move by the USSR, I don't believe it would be a good idea to get rid of any rewarding system immediately.

[BIXX]

/Ayn Rand

While the logic isn't actually the same, this still made me laugh.


EDIT: Well, since mod rightfully warned me to avoid a one-liner, I'd like to know what 'anti-society' really entails.

Anti-society (in the way I use it) refers to being against the subjugation or limitation of the individual through morality, or any structures that society raises.


Also, I hope we're keeping in mind that work is opposed to labour, right? (because there is no such difference in Portuguese, so sometimes it confuses me).


If you see labour as something like effort being exerted for a goal then yes there is a difference between work and labour.


Well I meant in the sense of providing mutual aid and support I guess. I also think that supporting people emotionally is an important part of a healthy community.


I think you and I mean slightly different things by society. I would like to explore this further but I don't exactly know where to begin.

[BisexualCommunist]

No offensive EchoShock, but resources should be handed out according to your production. If you dont work, you dont eat. Everyone must contribute, no free riding off of others.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

No offensive EchoShock, but resources should be handed out according to your production. If you dont work, you dont eat. Everyone must contribute, no free riding off of others.

Everyone gets enough to eat and live by, regardless. Unless you are implying that there is no surplus? That this is utter poverty? Either way, that is no communism I'd sign up for.

[Sinister Intents]

No offensive EchoShock, but resources should be handed out according to your production. If you dont work, you dont eat. Everyone must contribute, no free riding off of others.

This makes me think of what some conservatives have said, I'd be alright with people not working for there own personal reasons. They shouldn't be discriminated against for not working

[A Psychological Symphony]

No offensive EchoShock, but resources should be handed out according to your production. If you dont work, you dont eat. Everyone must contribute, no free riding off of others.

are you going to enforce my not eating if I decide to not contribute? Will you use force to prevent people from giving me free access to food?

People getting rewarded based on how much their "production" is? sounds like the shitty base of capitalism.

[BisexualCommunist]

No as I sais before if you are mentally, and physically unable to work the you will be provided for. All the people will be provided for, as long as they contribute and do their part. Lazy citizens, who leech off of society, are stealing resources from the common worker. The leech did not do their part, therefore they deserve no resources. Yes, there would be armed distribution centers, so that people couldn't steal from the people, for their own selfish needs.

[tachosomoza]

Everyone must contribute, no free riding off of others.

What of the disabled? The sick? The elderly? Those who are averse to manual labor and would much prefer to help tend to others, write literature, or study?

Also, this disdain for "free riding" smacks of conservative capitalist class collaboration. The free riders are the bourgeois, not your fellow members of the proletariat who for some reason can't pour as much wealth into their laps as you can.

[BisexualCommunist]

So you want to give resources, and when I say resources I do not mean capital I mean the resources needed to live, to someone who does absolutely nothing, while you work for your society and advance it forward.

[jake williams]

First off, no one on the left ever intended "if you don't work, you don't eat" to mean "we should let the old and the disabled die in the street; execute the elderly", and almost no one else seriously argues that either. So that's a completely meaningless argument and I'm not sure why anyone brought it up.

Second, barring a system of freely-available subsistence farms or something, if you're not working and not dying it means someone else is working to keep you happy and healthy, and if you're able to work and you're not doing it, that makes you a douchebag. Now, that's an ethical point (and a fact), but it's not a "political solution".

Dealing with the material fact that you're being a humongous ass taking advantage of the hard work of other people is going to take specific forms in specific circumstances.

If you're living in a capitalist society and you get by squatting and dumpstering, you're not helping anyone, but you're not taking advantage of anyone; it takes a lot of privilege to be able to do that (ie. most people don't get to live in a society where that's economically viable, you can't really do it with kids, some people are more subject to police violence than others), but it's not harmful.

If you're living in a capitalist society and you live at home and your mom makes you breakfast, and you don't work because anarchism, you're a shitty person, and you're taking advantage of people who love you, but that's kind of between you and your mom (obviously it's different if you're actually unemployed, or disabled).

If you're living in a socialist society where there are public services (large scale or small scale) that provide people with food and homes, and there's a policy that says that people who are able to work and refuse don't get anything, I'm pretty ok with that. I'm also fine with people getting something to eat and somewhere to live regardless, but you're still a douchebag.


tl;dr: I'm fine with communities, or worker-run public services, or whatever, not giving able-bodied people who refuse to work any services, but people probably shouldn't be forced to work. But that's only a distinction if you can find a way to live without working, which given the relative scarcity of unused arable land and farm equipment, isn't going to mean much to all but a pretty small group of (frankly, kind of selfish) people.

[BIXX]

No offensive EchoShock, but resources should be handed out according to your production. If you dont work, you dont eat. Everyone must contribute, no free riding off of others.


Eh whatever. I have no reason not to take what I need from the "store" or whatever distribution system there is under communism. And worst comes to worst I can Dumpster Dive and grow my own food. That's a worst case scenario, of course. I doubt that a society devoid of government or coercion would take to kindly to me being punished, even if it didn't like that I didn't contribute to it.

[Slavic]

Eh whatever. I have no reason not to take what I need from the "store" or whatever distribution system there is under communism. And worst comes to worst I can Dumpster Dive and grow my own food. That's a worst case scenario, of course. I doubt that a society devoid of government or coercion would take to kindly to me being punished, even if it didn't like that I didn't contribute to it.

Echoing what Jake Williams stated; you can take from the "store", you can be provided free housing, food, leisure goods. You can take all of these things and maintain your "anti-society" stance and not contribute to the community.

All that is fine and dandy, but you'd be a jackass. I would gladly fight for a society where you don't have to worry about food or housing. But I would not hesitate to call you out on your "anti-society" anarchy forever shit.

If everyone had your clan-like mindset, we would all be bashing each others heads in fighting for food in the forests.

[Remus Bleys]

I think it goes without saying that this formula presupposes "those who can't work get some form of welfare." You can't really chalk this up to Lenin either. It's been pointed out that the SI had this but many of the bolsheviks were also very convinced of this (Kollontai, the leader of the workers opposition, went so far as to say that women should make babies for the workers state). You also have to put this formula in context of backwards Russia which required the utmost labor to go from "wooden to steel." (Again Kollontai used this to condemn prostitution) I don't think it was much avoidable in Russia right wrong or indifferent.
But aside from the bolsheviks Camatte makes an argument for it. By using this formula you can ensure full employment - which will destroy competition within the working class as well as allowing so much labor to be put to productive use that the work day is drastically shortened (so he who works is he who works less then he did before). Camatte says this creates the community of work, which is part of the domination of communism.
To explain why Camatte says this you have to go back to Marx. Marx States that in communism labor becomes life's prime want - I can flesh this out if you want but I don't really want to now so I won't. One should also go back to the critique of the Gotha program. To each according to his ability is that of lower socialism - and he who doesn't contribute doesn't receive (excepting the inability to work). However even in communism's real domination - higher Phase socialism - this still operates somewhat because everyone has the desire to work, but again the very nature of what constitutes work has drastically and completely changed as it is known by now - and would be changing since proletarian dictatorship.
Realistically speaking "according to his contribution" is a "necessary evil" - such a mindset is not the ideal but it has to be admitted this formula is a birthpang of the revolution. You can't just have everyone not produce -if that was the case we'd all die. Of course anyone who thinks that "to each contribution" is the ideal or thinks that literally everyone should work or is against welfare for reactionary reasons should be ruthlessly attacked, but we have to look at things as they ate not as we'd like them to be.
NOTE: I vehemently disagree with those going "you are taking advantage of the real hard workers." Workers who do not work won't be treated as such, I agree more with an previous sentiment about comforting those that dont work. The former liquidated class members will of course be proletarianized. But people who go "well your just an asshole" are making a foolish argument. Communism is free access for a reason.

[BIXX]

All that is fine and dandy, but you'd be a jackass. I would gladly fight for a society where you don't have to worry about food or housing. But I would not hesitate to call you out on your "anti-society" anarchy forever shit.

We will struggle against each other after the revolution, yes. I have accepted this.


If everyone had your clan-like mindset, we would all be bashing each others heads in fighting for food in the forests.


Don't know if this is true, but thank god I'm not trying to spread MY ideas, right?

I am not struggling for the good of humanity, so I don't really care what would happen if everyone had my thoughts, ideas, etc...

[jake williams]

I vehemently disagree with those going "you are talking advantage of the hard workers." Workers who do not work won't be treated as such, I agree more with an previous sentiment about comforting those that dont work. The former liquidated class members will of course be proletarianized. But people who go "well your just an asshole" are making a foolish argument. Communism is free access for a reason.
I don't have any hard evidence for this, but I have the impression that most of the people who feel the way you do have not, for example, raised kids, or looked after a dying relative, or worked overtime at a shitty job to pay bills for dependents. For that matter, providing welfare to disabled people and the elderly presupposes that other people are working to provide for them in the first place.

I mean, for what it's worth, a single adult with no dependents who lives alone and survives from dumpstering and squatting contributes about as much to "society" in the abstract as a single adult with no dependents who has a telemarketing job and lives alone in a one-bedroom apartment. But, anyone who is alive, much less literate and using a computer and comfortable, is benefitting from the hard work of other people, and frankly if you say "yeah that's cool, I'mma just do my own thing though, thanks for taking care of me but I'd rather masturbate", then yeah, you're a shitty person.

When it comes down to the interpersonal ethics of "is Jane contributing to her society", there's more to life than wage labour, but as a general question, people who refuse to contribute materially to their community, just because of selfishness, aren't owed much by that community.

[Remus Bleys]

You're despicable. You have the cult of hard labor and use conservative logic. In communist society the fundings for your children and deceased are already covered. You worship hard work in capital, seem to praise wage labor and state work benefits society. What buffoonery! Almost all work in capitalism benefits capital and capital alone. To implement such measures is completely reactionary in the bourgeois society.
Of course it's awful telling you view the squatter as a bigger threat then you view the capitalist.
edit: I'm not going to waste any more time with that filth Jake Williams.

[bropasaran]

Concerning BisexualCommunist, you're basically bashing the guy for no reason. I'm pretty sure that he means the same thing that Bakunin, Kropotkin and Makhno ment, as I quoted them. There's really no warrant to impute that he thinks that communism will be poverty, total eugenics, enforced starvation or capitalism. Being that he's a M-L, I'm pretty sure that I'd oppose pretty much any concrete proposition that he supports, but there is nothing wrong with the sentiment he expressed here, as that is the same sentiment that was held by the likes of Bakunin and Kropotkin, as I've quoted on the last page of this thread.

The imputation that if one expects work from (able) people who consume that expectation is capitalistic- even though it is the lightest one, is also the most deluding imputation, precisely for the reason that Makhno noted in the quote I gave in my mentioned message (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2739559&postcount=21).

[Remus Bleys]

Shuttup Sotionov. There is a very real reason that he who shall not work is only for the formal/real domination of communism. If implementation were to happen now it could only help capital - assuming it could even do that.

[jake williams]

You have the cult of hard labor and use conservative logic.
Was that directed at me? Because I don't know what it means.


In communist society the fundings for your children and deceased are already covered.
By robots, or fairies?


Almost all work in capitalism benefits capital and capital alone.
This is patently false, most work in capitalist societies is either unwaged domestic labour, or public sector service provision (nurses and teachers), or producing use values for workers (homes, shirts, indoor plumbing, bacon), or producing industrial commodities and raw materials (steel, bricks, corn). The fact that capitalists extract surplus value doesn't mean the work itself doesn't benefit other workers. The fact of having an *economy*, capitalist or not, presupposes that at least someone is doing the work required to feed and clothe people.

That said, as I took great pains to point out, I don't think anyone has any kind of an ethical obligation to do wage labour in a capitalist society. Most people don't have the choice, but if you do and you take that choice, fine. But if you do that, and you also don't do work - you don't raise kids, you don't do political work, you don't do anything for other people - then yes, you're a douchebag.


Of course it's awful telling you view the squatter as a bigger threat then you view the capitalist.
That's not even kind of what I said, clearly. "Lazy and selfish but basically harmless" really isn't the same thing as "class enemy".


Envoyé de mon SGH-I747M en utilisant Tapatalk

[BisexualCommunist]

Concerning BisexualCommunist, you're basically bashing the guy for no reason. I'm pretty sure that he means the same thing that Bakunin, Kropotkin and Makhno ment, as I quoted them. There's really no warrant to impute that he thinks that communism will be poverty, total eugenics, enforced starvation or capitalism. Being that he's a M-L, I'm pretty sure that I'd oppose pretty much any concrete proposition that he supports, but there is nothing wrong with the sentiment he expressed here, as that is the same sentiment that was held by the likes of Bakunin and Kropotkin, as I've quoted on the last page of this thread.

No I am a follower of Marxist-Lenin-Hoxhaism. I believe in a strong central government made up by the vanguard of the party, with a party leader. Economically, and Socially it would be socialism/Communism.

[La Comédie Noire]

You obviously haven't read any actual text on the abolition of work so until then kindly give your opinions elsewhere, where you might be more educated.

Bob Black, for all his bullshit (snitch and kinda a prick in general) has a really good piece on the abolition if work. (http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/bob-black-the-abolition-of-work)


That piece didn't really explain anything it was just rhetoric and vague plans for a future society. It did the standard socialist thing of listing a few tribal societies and then saying increasing technology will make that possible so we'll get to keep the things we like. Though the author admits he is weary of technology and its supposed benefits.

I like the philosophy. I just don't see the logistics.

[Ele'ill]

what institution/governing body is going to permanently enforce 'don't work don't eat'?

with the amount of space available for fruits and veggies alone, just at a local level within neighborhoods even, and free from pretty much all the constraints such projects currently face land use etc.., I find those not able to imagine a world without a 'don't work don't eat' position are not genuinely thinking outside of and past our current society enough and the others actually desiring 'don't work don't eat' aren't communists at all

[Red Commissar]

As mentioned before this phrase is biblical in origin. I think Lenin's invocation of it was more of one to drive home the point of going against landowners and others whose income derives solely from the labor of others.

One day when I was bored I was looking through different flags at this site (http://flagspot.net/) and saw on one for political parties that the Italian Socialist Party had used the slogan in the 1910s and for a bit of the 1920s in some of their sections.

https://flagspot.net/flags/it%7Dpsi.html

https://flagspot.net/images/i/it%7Dps-03.gif

https://flagspot.net/images/i/it%7Dps-04.gif

"Chi non lavora non mangia" being the equivalent phrase here.

I don't think this phrase has any relevance anymore though. It may have played a role in the past but nowadays invoking this seems to be little different from those who defend workfare.

[BisexualCommunist]

The socialist state of course. Those who do not contribute to their fellow man, deserves nothing. They are nothing more than traitors to the proletariat, those who contribute to make life better.

[BisexualCommunist]

Wow another Trotsky traitor, What a surprise.

[jake williams]

what institution/governing body is going to permanently enforce 'don't work don't eat'?
Whichever institution distributes the social product. Like, if it's a central government or a regional commune or an agricultural commune, the principle is the same. And just to reiterate, I don't care if a worker-run society decides to feed selfish, lazy people (which is a different group of people than the people who receive welfare now); I just can't get upset if they choose not to.


with the amount of space available for fruits and veggies alone, just at a local level within neighborhoods even, and free from pretty much all the constraints such projects currently face land use etc... I find those not able to imagine a world without a 'don't work don't eat' position are not genuinely thinking outside of and past our current society enough and the others actually desiring 'don't work don't eat' aren't communists at all
You're completely delusional, almost no one wants the kind of standard of living provided for by neighbourhood fruit farming. If some future society decides to provide subsistence farmland to people who don't want to be a part of industrial society, that's fine, but for what it's worth, I don't think subsistence fruit farming is communism. But different strokes I guess.

[Alexios]

These discussions always seem to bring out the most disgusting elements of leftism.

[cassiane]

Actually that phrase can also be seen in the bible.

[synthesis]

You're completely delusional, almost no one wants the kind of standard of living provided for by neighbourhood fruit farming. If some future society decides to provide subsistence farmland to people who don't want to be a part of industrial society, that's fine, but for what it's worth, I don't think subsistence fruit farming is communism. But different strokes I guess.

The point is that with all the labor power and physical area that will not be required for commercial/capitalist purposes, it really will not be that hard to satisfy everyone's most basic human needs. We could easily do it now, but then we wouldn't have the stigma that you're promoting, regarding some arbitrary standard of "ability to work," that is used so wonderfully to motivate the reserve army of labor.

[reb]

The socialist state of course. Those who do not contribute to their fellow man, deserves nothing. They are nothing more than traitors to the proletariat, those who contribute to make life better.

Oh great, another one of these red capitalists. There's nothing more to your argument than the standard social democratic welfare state, including the back stabbing of the proletariat and counter revolutionary practice. Pay your taxes, get welfare. Don't sponge off the state, get a job.

[reb]

No I am a follower of Marxist-Lenin-Hoxhaism. I believe in a strong central government made up by the vanguard of the party, with a party leader. Economically, and Socially it would be socialism/Communism.

Are you for real? Either way, it's a pretty good joke that you are playing.

[BisexualCommunist]

Reb, I honestly could careless about what your opinion is. You always seem to be complaining about something on these forums, and all you seem to be showing is how much whining, and complaining you are able to do. I am sorry that you are unable to see true communism, when it is right in front of your face. Victory for the Proletariat is the goal. The End Justifies the Means.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Wow another Trotsky traitor, What a surprise.

I think this was in reply to my post which I deleted because it was a one-liner? Didn't see a reply. Oh well.

Anyways, *cough* Stalin worked with fascists and allied with imperialists *cough*

:rolleyes:

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

There's a difference between working out of enjoyment and working due to coercion.

I would pick work that is enjoyable over work that I am forced to do, but there are some forms of labour that everyone must take part in such as cleaning (on a rota perhaps) because everyone contributes to the accumulation of rubbish and waste on a local level. Plus it has the benefit of preventing a fixed number of people with certain qualities from doing all the unwanted manual jobs. Cleaning sewers and cleaning the streets once in a while can be seen as something enjoyable, a pleasant social interaction between people attempting to solve a problem. People on the outskirts of towns in country hamlets (In the UK) tend to have annual or bi-annual events where they go around litter-picking. It's brilliant!

Additionally, there are multiple types of work and everyone should do work of some kind, whether intellectual or manual. Otherwise, you're useless. This argument is dependent on the definition of work as 'activity involving mental or physical effort done in order to achieve a result'. If a group of elderly people are unfit for manual labour they can still provide other people with the benefits of their long life experiences and understanding. They could work to help others to learn for example (as opposed to teaching).

As for people shouting sectarian comments (or flaming) like 'Trotsky traitor', or labelling people as this or that capitalist and whatnot, just shut up. There's no room for any of that on the learning forum and it's unproductive.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Reb, I honestly could careless about what your opinion is. You always seem to be complaining about something on these forums, and all you seem to be showing is how much whining, and complaining you are able to do. I am sorry that you are unable to see true communism, when it is right in front of your face. Victory for the Proletariat is the goal. The End Justifies the Means.

And I could not care less what your opinion is. How the fuck do you juggle PSL with APL by the way? Marcyite pragmatic dictatorship-hugging isn't exactly anti-revisionist.

[BisexualCommunist]

There's a difference between working out of enjoyment and working due to coercion.

I would pick work that is enjoyable over work that I am forced to do, but there are some forms of labour that everyone must take part in such as cleaning (on a rota perhaps) because everyone contributes to the accumulation of rubbish and waste on a local level. Plus it has the benefit of preventing a fixed number of people with certain qualities from doing all the unwanted manual jobs. Cleaning sewers and cleaning the streets once in a while can be seen as something enjoyable, a pleasant social interaction between people attempting to solve a problem. People on the outskirts of towns in country hamlets (In the UK) tend to have annual or bi-annual events where they go around litter-picking. It's brilliant!

Additionally, there are multiple types of work and everyone should do work of some kind, whether intellectual or manual. Otherwise, you're useless. This argument is dependent on the definition of work as 'activity involving mental or physical effort done in order to achieve a result'. If a group of elderly people are unfit for manual labour they can still provide other people with the benefits of their long life experiences and understanding. They could work to help others to learn for example (as opposed to teaching).

As for people shouting sectarian comments (or flaming) like 'Trotsky traitor', or labelling people as this or that capitalist and whatnot, just shut up. There's no room for any of that on the learning forum and it's unproductive.

You are right, I apologize for my juvenile behavior.

[BisexualCommunist]

And I could not care less what your opinion is. How the fuck do you juggle PSL with APL by the way? Marcyite pragmatic dictatorship-hugging isn't exactly anti-revisionist.

APL is nonoperational to my knowledge. PSL is a lesser of 2 evils. If you know of any non-revisionist groups, then by all means tell me about them.


And I could not care less what your opinion is. How the fuck do you juggle PSL with APL by the way? Marcyite pragmatic dictatorship-hugging isn't exactly anti-revisionist.

Wow, way to throw yourself into a conversation. I wasnt talking to you.

[Buttscratcher]

what institution/governing body is going to permanently enforce 'don't work don't eat'?

with the amount of space available for fruits and veggies alone, just at a local level within neighborhoods even, and free from pretty much all the constraints such projects currently face land use etc.., I find those not able to imagine a world without a 'don't work don't eat' position are not genuinely thinking outside of and past our current society enough and the others actually desiring 'don't work don't eat' aren't communists at all
I support "Don't work, dont eat" for an early socialist stage, and I'm almost sure it is never meant to be a permanent policy by almost anyone who supports this.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

APL is nonoperational to my knowledge. PSL is a lesser of 2 evils. If you know of any non-revisionist groups, then by all means tell me about them.



Wow, way to throw yourself into a conversation. I wasnt talking to you.

APL was never a party to begin with except a little web-centred role-playing society that consisted of arsehats meeting on a teamspeak or a Skype chatroom to discuss how high they were and how much they loved weed in between hazily slurring out praises to Hoxha with the ideological equivalent to the consistency of baby food.

If the PSL is the lesser of two evils...

[BisexualCommunist]

APL was never a party to begin with except a little web-centred role-playing society that consisted of arsehats meeting on a teamspeak or a Skype chatroom to discuss how high they were and how much they loved weed in between hazily slurring out praises to Hoxha with the ideological equivalent to the consistency of baby food.

If the PSL is the lesser of two evils...

Well I had already been informed of how the APL operates. That is why I choose the PSL.

[helot]

The socialist state of course. Those who do not contribute to their fellow man, deserves nothing. They are nothing more than traitors to the proletariat, those who contribute to make life better.

How can i contribute without first having the necessary nutrition in order to labour? Without first having access to shelter, warmth and medicine? Without first having access to education and training?

You've got it backwards. It isnt 'don't work, don't eat' it's 'don't eat, can't work'.

[reb]

Reb, I honestly could careless about what your opinion is. You always seem to be complaining about something on these forums, and all you seem to be showing is how much whining, and complaining you are able to do. I am sorry that you are unable to see true communism, when it is right in front of your face. Victory for the Proletariat is the goal. The End Justifies the Means.

I am still unsure if you are for real or not. I am actually leaning towards the latter now. But for the benefit of putting the boot into a dead horse, communism is the real movement that abolishes the present state of things. What you are offering is just some ideological white wash that you plaster over capitalism and call it Marxism-Leninism that in no way changes the present state of things. You openly admit that you're anti-proletariat with your situationist policies so I'm not surprised that you're entirely fine with continued surplus value extraction from the direct producers, either with over force or plain old "don't work, don't eat".

[BisexualCommunist]

No I am definitely not anti-proletarian. Everyone who contributes to society will be taken care of housing, healthcare, education, etc. Freeloaders, on the other hand are no better than the current Bourgeois Leaders we have now, leeching off of the worker.

[BIXX]

APL was never a party to begin with except a little web-centred role-playing society that consisted of arsehats meeting on a teamspeak or a Skype chatroom to discuss how high they were and how much they loved weed in between hazily slurring out praises to Hoxha with the ideological equivalent to the consistency of baby food.


I dunno, that sounds fun. This is more or less what I do anyway except without the Hoxha.

[Sea]

It's biblical. From a Bronze Age society where everyone was involved in some way, shape or form with agriculture and was expected to do their fair share of labor to contribute to the community's welfare.Allowing those to starve who cannot work has nothing to do with the Leninist usage of the slogan.

You are right that it is biblical in origin. I wouldn't be surprised if the quote was taken directly from a Russian translation of the bible. If that is the case, you are reading a translation of a translation. Let's all open up our bibles (go steal a bible if you don't have one) to page 123 and see what this passage says:


For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.Here was can see that god sez that it's those who would not work, not those who do not work. That is, it's those who can work but are unwilling. The NIV transation makes that even more clear:
For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”Get the picture? Those who won't be having supper tonight are not the elderly and disabled, it's the landlords, royalty and capitalists (remember this is Lenin we're talking about here) that shall not eat if they decide to continue to be leeches.

Even if Lenin did have an evil plan to feed the nobility and landlords so that the elderly and disabled may starve, would he want to see that put in the constitution?


You're interpreting the quote in reverse. Those who shall not eat under the dictatorship of the proletariat are those who leech off the backs of the working class, and even then only if they refuse to contribute to society.

Furthermore, it's just a slogan, and indeed a biblical one at that! It's not supposed to be part of the programme, it's supposed to sum up one part of the programme in a way that was accessible to the (quite religious) Russian masses.


I agree though, it's remarkably cruel to allow the sick and the elderly and the disabled to starve to death while you tolerate nobility and owners who do no labor, yet eat better than a worker.Are you deliberately misinterpreting the quote? Golly gee, how on earth did you get the idea that it was the elderly and disabledthat should not be eating while the owners and nobility are tolerated? It seems that you pulled that out of you ass based on some superstitions you have against Bolshevism.

[Ele'ill]

What synthesis posted is what I'm getting at btw.


Whichever institution distributes the social product. Like, if it's a central government or a regional commune or an agricultural commune, the principle is the same.

So how are those institutions going to permanently enforce 'don't work don't eat'? Police to make arrests? Courts to hold trials? Prisons to punish and remove folks from "worker-society"? Who is gonna stop me from stealing? Certainly not the incentive not to steal that's for sure.



You're completely delusional, almost no one wants the kind of standard of living provided for by neighbourhood fruit farming.Well no actually they would want community orchards and vegetable plots in order to eat and they would be able to eat with those things.




If some future society decides to provide subsistence farmland to people who don't want to be a part of industrial society, that's fine,Hey i dunno, I'm probably completely delusional, but last I checked eating is kind of important so maybe it would take precedence over shitty boutiques and art warehouses because my madness has given me this bogus insight that living is more important than being a worker.

[Sea]

So how are those institutions going to permanently enforce 'don't work don't eat'? Police to make arrests? Courts to hold trials? Prisons to punish and remove folks from "worker-society"? Who is gonna stop me from stealing? Certainly not the incentive not to steal that's for sure.Your entire post reads like the words of a conservative who has no idea how society would work without cops and government! Those who are eating but not working (ie, capitalists and landlords) will be taken care of as the community sees fit. It's up for the workers and revolutionaries to decide, not bureaucrats! Furthermore, there is no permanent enforcement going on. The goal, remember, is to get rid of class distinctions, not by ignoring classes, but by carrying the class struggle to its conclusion, and to move towards a stateless, classless society.
Well no actually they would want community orchards and vegetable plots in order to eat and they would be able to eat with those things. This slogan that Lenin used isn't literally about eating and working, in this context it's more about owning an entire factory and not taking part in productive activity (that should give you a hint). Read my previous post in this thread.

[Slavic]

Your entire post reads like the words of a conservative who has no idea how society would work without cops and government! Those who are eating but not working (ie, capitalists and landlords) will be taken care of as the community sees fit. It's up for the workers and revolutionaries to decide, not bureaucrats! Furthermore, there is no permanent enforcement going on. The goal, remember, is to get rid of class distinctions, not by ignoring classes, but by carrying the class struggle to its conclusion, and to move towards a stateless, classless society.This slogan that Lenin used isn't literally about eating and working, in this context it's more about owning an entire factory and not taking part in productive activity (that should give you a hint). Read my previous post in this thread.

I think that you are misunderstanding Mar3L's intentions. We have moved past in the discussion that the rational of this quote was intended for capitalists and landowners. The thread has moved on to discussion how those who do and do not work will be treated in a "post capital" society.

Previous posters, and me to a limited extent, have stated that those who don't work, proletariat included, and are able to work should not be supported in a socialist society.

Mari3L was pointing out that if segments of the proletariat who do not work yet are able, in a "post capital" society, will be handled by the community, government, organization.

I hold that all should have their basic needs provided for regardless of their participation in society and the production of necessary use-value goods. Those who are able yet unwilling to work should still benefit from the bounties of society yet I hold the right to call them "Douchebag".

[Ele'ill]

Your entire post reads like the words of a conservative who has no idea how society would work without cops and government! Those who are eating but not working (ie, capitalists and landlords) will be taken care of as the community sees fit. It's up for the workers and revolutionaries to decide, not bureaucrats! Furthermore, there is no permanent enforcement going on. The goal, remember, is to get rid of class distinctions, not by ignoring classes, but by carrying the class struggle to its conclusion, and to move towards a stateless, classless society.

I think you misread or misunderstood my posts. The rhetorical question I asked is answered with, permanent cops, courts, prison, and government in order to enforce 'don't work don't eat' and I don't care if you want to theoretically divide things down to the word 'communities' because we can do that now local cops, courts, jails, prisons 'community' hey isn't it about as cute as 'small business' and 'boutiques'. The incentive towards insurrection against illegitimate authority would kind of be a thing as food is a necessity and I find it alarming that folks calling themselves communists would have such a stunted level of creativity as to not be able to consider the amount of options (my previous post) regarding land usage to provide for everyone in light of food and shelter. It will literally be (my other previous post) an entire restructuring of how society operates, I think organic, spontaneous, practical, and it will not be (I hope) a take-over with new management which, regardless of how you dress it, is what has been proposed in these threads. Also the abhorrent incapability to recognize a society based around desires and interests instead of being violently coerced to participate in any manner that you can just to live. That isn't the future that is now.

[BIXX]

Also the abhorrent incapability to recognize a society based around desires and interests instead of being violently coerced to participate in any manner that you can just to live. That isn't the future that is now.


This is super important. Of course there will always be conflicts of the individual against society, but a society such as that Mari3L described would probably lessen those conflicts massively (which we can agree is best for everyone).

I just gotta say, I will almost always choose the individual who is striving toward freedom.