How to prevent slackers?

[Redhead]

I live in Norway and here we got a welfare system. One of these things is that if you cant get a job you get a certain amount of money. This is good for those who actually struggles and cant get a job, but theres alot of people who take advantage of this system.

So my question is: In a communist society, what would prevent slackers from not contributing to society. In theory this could be a big problem if people stopped working because they dont have to.

[Blake's Baby]

I think it's a mistake to ascribe the same category of 'slacker' to someone who is (perceived to be) taking advantage of the system in a capitalist state, and someone who might not be working at some point in communist society.

There are numerous studies to show that people who are unemployed long-term are less likely to engage with the process of trying to find a job. Are these people really 'slacking' or just ground-down by circumstance? Of course, to some people not working in capitalism is a political statement - you may disagree that this is a useful action but would you condemn people who revolt against wage slavery by refusing to take part?

So I think your category of the 'slacker in capitalism' is problematic for a start; it reads a bit like conservative complaints against the 'undeserving poor'.

In socialist society, when work is no longer a contract in which an employer holds the power but is instead a meaningful (and hopefully more pleasant) activity that humans engage in voluntarily, 'slacking' will I suspect become much more rare. If there is more freedom to chose your field of endeavour, if there are fewer barriers to doing work you'd find interesting and stimulating, if you're no longer doing it to make someone else rich - if it ceases to be 'work', in fact - what reason would there be for people to indulge in this sort of behaviour? People who work at the moment will be able to massively increase their 'leisure time'. People out of work will be able to take part in meaningful, interesting an socially-useful activities, and also be able to access a bigger share of social wealth. So everyone 'wins'.

Socialist society is predicated on everyone helping a little and accomplishing a lot, instead of some doing nothing and some doing everything. I think people are clever enough to realise that.

[Illegalitarian]

What we know now as work would be almost entirely be different in a system where production is socialized and the working class control the means of production, so no, I don't think slacking would be a problem.

If someone is in a situation where they can slack now, more power to them.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I live in Norway and here we got a welfare system. One of these things is that if you cant get a job you get a certain amount of money. This is good for those who actually struggles and cant get a job, but theres alot of people who take advantage of this system.

Good for them. I think the implication that these people are bad is highly problematic: why should they "honestly" work themselves to death so that a capitalist can profit off their labour?


So my question is: In a communist society, what would prevent slackers from not contributing to society. In theory this could be a big problem if people stopped working because they dont have to.

Nothing would prevent people from not working. There is no Socialist Police to put a gun to people's heads because they don't want to work. But precisely because they aren't being forced to work, and because work has become one of life's primary needs instead of an odious imposition, people will generally want to work.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

The people I know who could be called "slackers" simply don't see a reason to be a wage slave, when there are more pleasurable ways to spend their time. Under communism, the amount of socially necessary labor would mean people would have more leisure time than not.

[Art Vandelay]

Show me a 'lazy' person and I'll show you a round peg being shoved into a square slot.

[BIXX]

Show me a 'lazy' person and I'll show you a round peg being shoved into a square slot.
Do I have permission to make a really stupid joke? Cause this made one pop into my head

But I agree with you're point.

[Sinister Intents]

When my employees slack off its usually with me and we end up getting a lot done. Everyone has the right to be lazy

[BIXX]

I'm a slacker

[Sinister Intents]

I'm a slacker

So is my weed dealer, and I employ him and he's a good worker, I let breaks be entirely voluntary in my business. Not being a dictator has lead to an increase in work quality in general

[Spatula City]

Slackers are disillusioned, not lazy. It's passive resistance, not an active pursuit of sloth.

Slackers and welfare fraudsters exist due to the fact that the pursuit of extrinsic motivation (monetary reward) devalues the social value of the work itself. It forces everyone to focus primarily on their salary first and their work second. More money always equals nicer things, more opportunities, more self-respect and more respect from others, and the work itself is often irrelevant... it's an afterthought in some cases, a degradation that we tolerate in others. The contribution we're making to society is irrelevant, how much money we are being paid is all that matters. This isn't to say that all jobs are like this, but many are.

It is difficult to face a future of grueling work, low social value, and lesser rewards that aren't at all a fair reflection of one's worth as an individual. If you're in that situation, then there is no reason to choose a job over welfare. I would do it in a heartbeat.

On the other hand, people who no longer worry about money or security are free to appreciate the intrinsic value of their work. I can remember reading that once someone makes $75k/year, they feel content in their lives. I've reached that point with far less than that. It is freedom to go to work every day and realize you don't need to worry about food, shelter, health care, competition, etc. Your mind is free to focus on improving yourself, on improving your performance, on motivating yourself to provide the best service you can provide, not to beat the other guy, but because doing so makes you happy.

So why not get rid of salaries, give everyone that $75k standard of living, give everyone that $75k level of respect and let them do their jobs knowing that they are appreciated, respected and valued?

Janitors could be seen as just as important and valued as rock stars. Politicians as important and valued as garbagemen. If all jobs provide equal levels of self efficacy, then slacking off makes absolutely no sense. You no longer need to resist the system because it is telling you that you have value and your efforts are important, instead of threatening you with starvation or shame.

People work harder when they feel appreciated, but they can't feel appreciated if they're at the bottom of a system that is inherently degrading. Sometimes it's better to remove yourself from it completely.

[Redhead]

My point here is, what would motivate people to go to work if they dont have to? The society would be very up and down if everybody came and went as they pleased.
Everybody has days where they just dont feel like standing up, sleep an hour more or just skip work. Im not saying people wouldnt skip work at all, but just come to work when they want.
Now as a principle this sounds nice, but im not sure if it would be a very efficient way of running things.

And i think the "In communism people want to work because they want to" argument is kinda weak. We cant see into the future how things will work out, so we need a more concrete plan, instead of just thinking everything will solve itself.

[Sinister Intents]

I will do as I want to and other people will do as they please, also people will work out of pleasure, and if you want something you will have to request it or help do the work yourself, also communism doesn't mean the end of producing luxuries which can be done using robotics.

[Creative Destruction]

My point here is, what would motivate people to go to work if they dont have to?

Because humans are working animals. They want to work... doing things they want to do. "Slacker" is just code word for someone who is not getting with the capitalist mode of work. If you change the motivation and nature of work, people will be down for doing it, if they want to fulfill what it is they want to do, while helping society along as well. For example, I don't want to do content management. It's just a job I do and an unfortunate career I've found myself in just to make a paycheck. I slack off at work because I dread the soul-crushing monotony of the work. What I want to do is research the weather. I want to sit my ass out in the middle of a field and watch the clouds or in front of a radar monitor or a numerical dataset and figure out how our atmosphere works the way it does. If I'm allowed to do that (god willing, since I'm going to school for it), I figure I can offer information and research that furthers our understanding of the dynamics of our environment. I could be doing this with much more efficiency and effectiveness if I wasn't stuck doing a job I hate for 40 hours and struggling to get my way through school.

Show me someone who is intentionally a so-called "slacker" and I'll show you someone who is probably depressed and fed up with their circumstances.

[Creative Destruction]

Now as a principle this sounds nice, but im not sure if it would be a very efficient way of running things.

who gives a shit about efficiency itself so long as everyone's needs are being met?

[The Intransigent Faction]

Show me a 'lazy' person and I'll show you a round peg being shoved into a square slot.

...Have you been reading my journal or something? Creepy.

Anyway, the


"In communism people want to work because they want to" argument is kinda weak

because that's a ridiculous strawman which suggests the argument is begging the question when it's not.

There's plenty of empirical evidence, and if you really are sincere you could find plenty of anecdotal evidence, that money is neither the sole nor even the strongest motive to work. If it is a motive at all, that is conditional on the present socioeconomic system which makes it such, and in a different system wherein the economy is driven by something other than profit, there would be different motives. Anyway, others said it better than I did. Just wanted to weigh in.

EDIT: Also, "efficiency" is a loaded word. Capitalism is insanely inefficient in terms of meeting people's most basic needs let alone allowing them opportunities for creative and fulfilling labour. Reactionaries look at a homeless person and say "You got where you are because you are inherently undeserving and we won't waste resources on you". Revolutionaries, on the other hand, say "You got where you are because of circumstances beyond your own control and given the right resources and opportunities, you can be capable of great things".

[Spatula City]

The society would be very up and down if everybody came and went as they pleased.

People wouldn't come and go as they pleased! Communist society promotes equality, not disorganization.

There will always be a practical need for schedules and even work contracts, and these would be laid out by the organizers or managers of the activity.

If nothing else, a willingness to take on the more challenging or less desirable jobs can earn someone respect, which in turn will socially help them towards their goals.

[Zanters]

Throw them in the gulags.

Seriously though, the phrase "to each according to their need, from each according to their ability." The community isn't going to like slackers, much like how your mom doesn't like your brother not taking out the trash. Your mother will get mad and make him do it, as will the community if you don't pick up the slack.

Quit thinking of post-socialism circumstances in a capitalist mind set too. Just like people who were feudalist thought of capitalism. What will happen with all of the serfs?

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

My point here is, what would motivate people to go to work if they dont have to? The society would be very up and down if everybody came and went as they pleased.
Everybody has days where they just dont feel like standing up, sleep an hour more or just skip work. Im not saying people wouldnt skip work at all, but just come to work when they want.
Now as a principle this sounds nice, but im not sure if it would be a very efficient way of running things.

OK, let's think about this in historical terms for a minute. Human society precedes the state by millennia. Were people always just dropping dead due to laziness? No, almost certainly not. The thing is that people, presented with the choice of either participating meaningfully in social life and the reproduction of their community (meaning, like, y'know, growing food and shit) or being selfish assholes who will almost certainly be viewed by their peers in a negative light, will almost universally choose the former. This isn't just some crackpot pet theory about "human nature" - this is the vast majority of human history.


And i think the "In communism people want to work because they want to" argument is kinda weak. We cant see into the future how things will work out, so we need a more concrete plan, instead of just thinking everything will solve itself.

See, the thing is, we can't make "concrete plans" for other people in a communist society - it runs counter any real sense of how a communist society would organize itself. By putting the initiative into the hands of those directly participating in re/production, a communist society opens up the possibility of an organic relation between communities of free producers, rather than a top-down dictating of terms (as, in capitalism, by capitalists and their states, with horrific consequences when they squabble among themselves). The point isn't to have "the plan" - it's to plan for the flowering of a multiplicity of plans which grow from the grassroots.

Consider, for example a forest. A forest is an incredibly complex ecosystem which maintains a dynamic equilibrium. Impose a plan - see tree farms - and it all goes to shit (or, much like capitalism, requires massive petrochemical inputs to not die).

[Wht.Rex]

So my question is: In a communist society, what would prevent slackers from not contributing to society. In theory this could be a big problem if people stopped working because they dont have to.

Answer is simple, if they do not work, they do not eat. Classic Marxism - "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". If he can't produce society with anything useful, then he should not benefit from society either.

Soviet Union was example. There were alcoholics, which spent all money on wage, drank all day, but in return, he could not progress himself anyhow, if he did not want himself to live better.

My family was hard working. My grandmother worked as felcher (assistant doctor) and director in local factory. She received pretty large wage and did not even know where to put all the money, they had form all income. My grandfather worked as merchant navy officer and my mother, while she was studying in medschool, worked as sanitary and also had pretty large income.

[Blake's Baby]

My point here is, what would motivate people to go to work if they dont have to? The society would be very up and down if everybody came and went as they pleased.
Everybody has days where they just dont feel like standing up, sleep an hour more or just skip work. Im not saying people wouldnt skip work at all, but just come to work when they want.
Now as a principle this sounds nice, but im not sure if it would be a very efficient way of running things.

And i think the "In communism people want to work because they want to" argument is kinda weak. We cant see into the future how things will work out, so we need a more concrete plan, instead of just thinking everything will solve itself.

As others have said - who says production will be 'efficient'? Efficient production usually means fast, noisy, unpleasant production where a few people have a high workload. I mean, really, you can roll 'efficient prouction' into a small ball and stick it somewhere smelly. If we don't destroy 'efficient' production as soon as possible, we're not doing it properly.

Work should cease being an obligation that we need to do to 'get stuff' and become a joyful and creative activity. That means that 1-loads more people should be inolved in the process so that if it is relatively unpleasant, no-one has to put up with a lot of unpleasantness, and either way we should have a lot more free time; 2-people will be attempting to find different ways to get the job done to actively eliminate the unpleasantness because they will be in control of the processes rather than doing it the way the boss tells them; 3-people will be doing things for themselves an their community, because they want to and because they think these things are worthwhile, not doing what a boss tells them so they can get some money to get other stuff.

I think you're not taking into account how liberating for people it will be when we control our own work processes and set our own goals. If we want a swimming pool in our community, instead of emplying people to build a swimming pool who don't care about the finished product and are only doing the job because someone is paying them, we will build the swimming pool because we want to. So why would we goof off? If we do that, we don't get the swimming pool that we want. It's only us that we're inconveniencing.


Answer is simple, if they do not work, they do not eat. Classic Marxism - "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". If he can't produce society with anything useful, then he should not benefit from society either.

Soviet Union was example. There were alcoholics, which spent all money on wage, drank all day, but in return, he could not progress himself anyhow, if he did not want himself to live better.

My family was hard working. My grandmother worked as felcher (assistant doctor) and director in local factory. She received pretty large wage and did not even know where to put all the money, they had form all income. My grandfather worked as merchant navy officer and my mother, while she was studying in medschool, worked as sanitary and also had pretty large income.

All of that relies on the Soviet Union being a communist society. As it was no such thing, the argument falls down.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Frankly I'm all in favor of slacking under capitalism and I think the concept of slacking would be as relevant in communist society as the concept of the great chain of being or deference to nobility is to modern non feudal societies.

Slacking is a concept of capitalism where work must be done at a rate that makes the investment in labor worth it. Slacking is a smart move for workers in capitalism since the boss wants you to produce more for the same pay... Why wouldn't you also try and work less for the same pay.


Independent farmers don't slack (procrastination might happen) they only either work or rest because they are only working to meet their needs and desires. Slacking means you are not working at the pace desired by others. If people are working collectively under communism, then peer-pressure might be used for people who are not carrying their weight in an effort, but there really wouldn't be much use for slacking without wage-labor.

[Comrade V]

By allowing people the means to do what they love if they have the ability, a lot of the "lazy" people I've met are those who couldn't afford college and ended up stuck in an endless cycle of debt. It's all about finding something you love doing and unfortunately if you're poor you have to get lucky or have an extensive scholarship to get through it.

I got lucky.

[Zanters]

Answer is simple, if they do not work, they do not eat. Classic Marxism - "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". If he can't produce society with anything useful, then he should not benefit from society either.


Brilliant. So those who can't contribute should just be left to die! We should just start to get rid of those we deem as unproductive and useless. Let's start with the disabled and we can move our way to homosexuals and jews.

Do you read half the shit you say? You either misunderstand what Marx wrote, or are very terrible with communicating yourself.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

There will obviously be people who don't want to abide by social norms and traditions under any social system. To say otherwise is hopelessly naive and utopian. In any society/social system, there will be ways to deal with such people. In the capitalist system, the way that such people are dealt with involves a thoroughly un-productive mixture of punishment, stigma and blame ('those lazy immigrant benefit slackers causing the WHOLE economy to fail', for example).

I would imagine a better system, and one that I would argue for in a socialist society, would involve giving people the best chance to succeed (greater educational opportunities, more freedoms when it comes to a career or careers, and of course not working somebody in the ground but only requiring them to complete socially necessary labour time). There will always be people who work harder than others for various reasons (enjoyment of the job, finding the right career, other social factors) and this needs to be factored into the culture and traditions of a particular society, as is already done.

The difference between capitalism and some as-yet undefined socialist society is that we hope that a socialist society, free of the need to pursue profit all-day, everyday, will be able to give more time and resources to support those who have hitherto been caught in the 'vicious cycle' of poverty, worklessness and slacking.

[cyu]

If I work for a Central American dictator and it is my job to torture leftists that have been disappeared, am I contributing to society if I'm a slacker? If I'm too lazy to torture leftists much, do I still deserve the $300K salary that the CIA helps pay for? If I'm not creating value for my employer, who am I creating value for?

That's an important question - capitalist economists purposely try to avoid value judgments. To them, if others are willing to pay me to torture people, then I deserve that money, and my "value" to the economy is measured by how much the CIA is willing to pay me.

If a soft drink company hires me to murder union organizers at their bottling plant, and I'm slacking at my job, does that mean I'm too lazy to deserve food?

[Blake's Baby]

It does in capitalism. But not even the dimmest of tankies thinks that we should work hard in capitalism, surely?

[Zanters]

It does in capitalism. But not even the dimmest of tankies thinks that we should work hard in capitalism, surely?

I don't know why you wouldn't want personal success. It is not like you chose to live in this society. If the capitalists are willing to give me higher wages for easy shit, why not? As long as I don't inhibit the revolution who do I hurt?

[Wht.Rex]

All of that relies on the Soviet Union being a communist society. As it was no such thing, the argument falls down.

Never called Soviet society as communist. I said just how principles of labor and reward worked.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I don't know why you wouldn't want personal success. It is not like you chose to live in this society. If the capitalists are willing to give me higher wages for easy shit, why not? As long as I don't inhibit the revolution who do I hurt?

Hey, work as much as you like. But the point was, we communists aren't going to howl with the wolves about the Slackers who are Abusing the System (TM).

[cyu]

But the point was, we communists aren't going to howl with the wolves about the Slackers who are Abusing the System (TM).

Or to paraphrase libcom, if you're lazy at work or "stealing" office supplies, you're just taking back some the surplus value already extracted from you.

[Blake's Baby]

I don't know why you wouldn't want personal success. It is not like you chose to live in this society. If the capitalists are willing to give me higher wages for easy shit, why not? As long as I don't inhibit the revolution who do I hurt?

Oh, right, you get 'personal sucess' from working hard now, do you? I'll tell that to all the underpaid workers I know that this is what 'success' is, I'm sure they'll be thrilled.


Never called Soviet society as communist. I said just how principles of labor and reward worked.

Good monkeys, there's a lot of supporters of capitalism around today. Has some sort of bus-trip of Calvinists arrived from somewhere? 'Work hard! Know your place! Capitalism and the state work in the interests of all!'

No, not really.

[Zanters]

Took what I said completely wrong. I'm speaking of those proletarians who are successful, there is no shame in it. Much like those who slack. I can't blame someone for wanting to be well while they're alive.

[Blake's Baby]

Look, if workers are making the decision that they can work hard to get a few more crumbs, then, good luck to them. I'm certainly not going to claim that they shouldn't.

But they shouldn't have to.

Likewise, no-one should have to spend 10 years signing on and being harassed by the 'welfare' system in order to get a pitifully small amount of money because the economy has no use for them.

Both of those situations are bad, and they are linked. That's the point. We don't get to chose our hand, just how we play it. Neither is 'better' or 'worse' from the individual's point of view - both are just choices people make in constrained circumstances.

[Zanters]

Look, if workers are making the decision that they can work hard to get a few more crumbs, then, good luck to them. I'm certainly not going to claim that they shouldn't.

But they shouldn't have to.

Likewise, no-one should have to spend 10 years signing on and being harassed by the 'welfare' system in order to get a pitifully small amount of money because the economy has no use for them.

Both of those situations are bad, and they are linked. That's the point. We don't get to chose our hand, just how we play it. Neither is 'better' or 'worse' from the individual's point of view - both are just choices people make in constrained circumstances.

I completely agree.

[Left-Wing Nutjob]

Under capitalism, there are those who want to work but can't find work, those who for one reason or another aren't able to work (disability, etc.), and those who don't work because they don't have to (the capitalist class-who are the real slackers).

[cyu]

You guys just reminded me of this :laugh:

http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/just-a-boss-being-honest.jpeg

[Wht.Rex]

Good monkeys, there's a lot of supporters of capitalism around today. Has some sort of bus-trip of Calvinists arrived from somewhere? 'Work hard! Know your place! Capitalism and the state work in the interests of all!'

No, not really.


What does exactly labor has to do specifically with capitalism? Or maybe you don't know basics of capitalism and communism and what are their differences?

[Rad]

My point here is, what would motivate people to go to work if they dont have to? The society would be very up and down if everybody came and went as they pleased.
Everybody has days where they just dont feel like standing up, sleep an hour more or just skip work. Im not saying people wouldnt skip work at all, but just come to work when they want.
Now as a principle this sounds nice, but im not sure if it would be a very efficient way of running things.

And i think the "In communism people want to work because they want to" argument is kinda weak. We cant see into the future how things will work out, so we need a more concrete plan, instead of just thinking everything will solve itself.

Necessity will force people to work. Even a lazy person keeps his room somewhat clean, why? Because he realizes the danger of letting dirt accumulate - so he works to solve the problem. And it tkaes a lot of maturity to achieve a communist society - so logically people will be working hard (or smart) anyway without any compulsion. Slacking off is a byproduct of capitalism and other primitive systems where people find work boring.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Meh, sloth will always be a temptation for some.

What about the slacker families of rich people? Does anyone ever complain about them?

[Redhead]

Think i have to specify a bit. When i mean slackers, i dont mean those who doesnt work as hard, or skips work somedays. Im talking about the ones who does not work at all, not because they are disabled or cant get work, but because they dont want to and therefore exploiting other people who actually contributes.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Think i have to specify a bit. When i mean slackers, i dont mean those who doesnt work as hard, or skips work somedays. Im talking about the ones who does not work at all, not because they are disabled or cant get work, but because they dont want to and therefore exploiting other people who actually contributes.

Actually, a communist society does away with the bourgeoisie entirely. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpaOy8b8X6A)

-

In seriousness though, I don't know that you're talking about a class of people who really exists. I've spent some time under bridges, with drunks in city parks, and in welfare offices. Let me tell you, none of that is "not working" let alone "exploiting other people". Go spend a day panhandling, and tell me at the end of eight hours that it hasn't been work, I dare you. Spend a day standing in lines and jumping through bureaucratic hoops to get a few hundred dollars from the government - see if it's any easier or more pleasant than testing videogames or picking apples.

In any case, as for it being exploitative - nonsense! Certainly, the voluntary contributions received by a panhandler are no more exploitative than the money conned from people by capital's armies of minimum-wage snake-oil peddlers. Undeniably the welfare recipient is more morally entitled to the money of "people who actually contribute" than the soldier who commits murders in their name.

No, I'm pretty sure you're referring to a reactionary ideological boogieman, and not any class of people I've seen in real life.

[TheMask]

No, I'm pretty sure you're referring to a reactionary ideological boogieman, and not any class of people I've seen in real life.

Well I'm not quite sure what country you live in but I come from Denmark. In Denmark we have a welfare system that supplies those without work with money for basically doing nothing. Given, yes theoretically they have to be ''looking for work'' but in reality this does not require them to actually be available to any sort of work-force. I know people personally who believe that because they have the possibility to exploit this system they feel like they're in their right to. They have no jobs, they do nothing creative and they shape movements with the goal of improving their already fine conditions. And yes I am NOT talking about those disabled or old or uneducated or in any other way unable to work. These people are in perfect capability of working and they will consistently avoid doing work at any chance they get until our system seizes to enable them to. I'm not saying these people are a definite hinder to the glorious communist system we all dream of. But as much as I hate to admit it this ''reactionary ideological boogieman'' as you call does indeed exist in countries with more welfare than America especially in Europe.

They're out there - Unfortunatly

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Well I'm not quite sure what country you live in but I come from Denmark. In Denmark we have a welfare system that supplies those without work with money for basically doing nothing. Given, yes theoretically they have to be ''looking for work'' but in reality this does not require them to actually be available to any sort of work-force. I know people personally who believe that because they have the possibility to exploit this system they feel like they're in their right to. They have no jobs, they do nothing creative and they shape movements with the goal of improving their already fine conditions. And yes I am NOT talking about those disabled or old or uneducated or in any other way unable to work. These people are in perfect capability of working and they will consistently avoid doing work at any chance they get until our system seizes to enable them to. I'm not saying these people are a definite hinder to the glorious communist system we all dream of. But as much as I hate to admit it this ''reactionary ideological boogieman'' as you call does indeed exist in countries with more welfare than America especially in Europe.

They're out there - Unfortunatly

1. I'm not American, and, for the record, it pisses me off when people assume I am.

2. Again, you seem to equate refusing formal waged labour with "basically doing nothing". My experience tells me that this is the attitude of someone who hasn't spent much time among people "exploiting" (a poor choice of words if ever there was one) the system: Certainly, such people don't "do nothing" any more than people who work in lower management, then go home in the evening and play on facebook, wash, rinse, repeat.

This whole attitude that refusing waged labour in favour of receiving welfare which glorifies the former at the expense of the latter is the worst sort of internalized capitalist ideological bs. A person's projects embarked upon outside of (or against!) dead labour say far more about their motivations, capacities, and "laziness" one way or the other.

[cyu]

This being a discussion board frequented by communists, you might imagine this would be an FAQ. Here are some past threads that might have some interesting points for you:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/no-incentive-work-t177969/index.html

http://www.revleft.com/vb/non-monetary-motivation-t128729/index.html

http://www.revleft.com/vb/few-questions-incentive-t172227/index.html

http://www.revleft.com/vb/dealing-parasites-t105004/index.html

Bonus offsite link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overjustification_effect

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Well I'm not quite sure what country you live in but I come from Denmark. In Denmark we have a welfare system that supplies those without work with money for basically doing nothing. Given, yes theoretically they have to be ''looking for work'' but in reality this does not require them to actually be available to any sort of work-force. I know people personally who believe that because they have the possibility to exploit this system they feel like they're in their right to. They have no jobs, they do nothing creative and they shape movements with the goal of improving their already fine conditions.

Good for them, then.

What would you have them do, work hard for the bourgeoisie? It never ceases to amaze me that there are socialists who in effect say to the wage slaves: work harder for your master.

[TheMask]

Good for them, then.

What would you have them do, work hard for the bourgeoisie? It never ceases to amaze me that there are socialists who in effect say to the wage slaves: work harder for your master.

I am afraid you have misunderstood utterly. The initial point of discussion was whether or not people who ''slack'' and feed off the system when possible exist. Please pay attention.

[Redhead]

This is not a debate about these people either "not working hard for their master", or "exploiting others in a capitalist society". My question was, will thisbe a problem in a COMMUNIST society. And no more arguments like "good for them" or "they dont exists". Because they do, and many people will see this as a valid argument against marxism.

[Redistribute the Rep]

This is not a debate about these people either "not working hard for their master", or "exploiting others in a capitalist society". My question was, will thisbe a problem in a COMMUNIST society. And no more arguments like "good for them" or "they dont exists". Because they do, and many people will see this as a valid argument against marxism.

Except you haven't provided evidence that they exist on a noticeable scale and if they do, how is that an argument against Communism? I'll assume instead of marxism you mean communism (marxism is a methodology). Wouldn't it be an argument against the current system, being that is presumably creates such a class of people (again, assuming it even exists )

[Lord Testicles]

This is not a debate about these people either "not working hard for their master", or "exploiting others in a capitalist society". My question was, will thisbe a problem in a COMMUNIST society. And no more arguments like "good for them" or "they dont exists". Because they do, and many people will see this as a valid argument against marxism.

This simply isn't a problem in capitalist society so why would it be a problem in a communist society?

[Creative Destruction]

This is not a debate about these people either "not working hard for their master", or "exploiting others in a capitalist society". My question was, will thisbe a problem in a COMMUNIST society. And no more arguments like "good for them" or "they dont exists". Because they do, and many people will see this as a valid argument against marxism.

you're asking a question that has its roots in the capitalist system. in order to get to your question, you have to get at the reasons for why people "slack" in the first place, which is what a lot of people are trying to explain to you in this thread.

if the following are true:

a.) humans live to work, in a sense. we are creative beings.
b.) the capitalist system alienates us from our labor, and with that alienation comes all the resultant issues of it, like slacking.

then we would need to think about how a.) expresses itself when b.) is no longer an issue. if the problem of alienation no longer existed, and people were free to pursue their creative desires, to the benefit of all, why would there need to be a reason to interrogate the issue of "slackers"?

right now, i am "slacking." posting on RevLeft and answering your question. i am not doing something productive. the reason for that is is that i am resting for a day after a long fucking week of shit work and the shit job i go to, plus trying to juggle school responsibilities. i've been zapped to the point where i don't want to do anything but mentally masturbate about a society where i don't have to undergo the kind of pressures that i do in order to do what i want to do.

if your concern is that there are people who will just want to laze around all day and watch television or whatever, then you need to get to specifics and ask those individuals why it is they want to do only that. what is it in their lives that makes them just want to tune out, instead of participate in society?

in the end, you're asking an imperfect question to which there is no quick and easy answer. and if you're debating people who are looking for quick and easy answers to an incredibly complex problem, then they're not people who are serious about having this conversation anyway. they just want to score points and say that you're wrong. that is a conversation you want to walk away from. the people who would use this as an "argument" against communists aren't prepared to have their minds changed and you shouldn't beat your head against the wall trying to convince them of it.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

This is not a debate about these people either "not working hard for their master", or "exploiting others in a capitalist society". My question was, will thisbe a problem in a COMMUNIST society. And no more arguments like "good for them" or "they dont exists". Because they do, and many people will see this as a valid argument against marxism.

I'm sure they do something. They might not "work" insofar as your narrowly defined productivist conception goes - but they probably do something; it is quite hard, to live, without doing anything whatsoever. For some of us, getting out of bed in the morning is quite enough of a challenge. So sod off with this bloody protestant work ethic shit.

[Creative Destruction]

Think i have to specify a bit. When i mean slackers, i dont mean those who doesnt work as hard, or skips work somedays. Im talking about the ones who does not work at all, not because they are disabled or cant get work, but because they dont want to and therefore exploiting other people who actually contributes.

who are these people who "don't work at all" and what do you mean by that? could you produce some sort of empirical study that accounts for these professional slackers and their effect on the welfare of everyone else?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I am afraid you have misunderstood utterly. The initial point of discussion was whether or not people who ''slack'' and feed off the system when possible exist. Please pay attention.

Ah, of course, that's why you said "I know people personally who believe that because they have the possibility to exploit this system they feel like they're in their right to. They have no jobs, they do nothing creative and they shape movements with the goal of improving their already fine conditions." But you didn't mean to imply their behaviour was problematic at all, I'm sure.

The entire discussion is pointless. If the productivity of labour is so low that a few people not working is going to cause problems, then the material conditions for socialism do not exist, the productive forces haven't developed to the point that social control of the means of production is a possibility and necessity.

And this is obviously not the case - even the present state of the productive forces can support entire classes and strata who do not participate in the productive process.

People are getting their panties in a twist because those damn leeches are going to "steal" "their" work. Honestly I can't think of a more anti-socialist, petit-bourgeois perspective.

[RedMaterialist]

This is not a debate about these people either "not working hard for their master", or "exploiting others in a capitalist society". My question was, will thisbe a problem in a COMMUNIST society. And no more arguments like "good for them" or "they dont exists". Because they do, and many people will see this as a valid argument against marxism.

According to Wiki the unemployment rate in Norway is about 2%. It must be pretty hard to find those slackers.

[cyu]

right now, i am "slacking." posting on RevLeft and answering your question. i am not doing something productive.

Actually, what you're doing is a lot more productive than the people hired to work at pro-capitalist "think tanks" from which they make up excuses (which they themselves know to be half-truths at best) to prop up rule by the rich. They might justify their actions by telling themselves they need to pay their mortgage or put their kids through school, but in fact the "work" they are doing is counter-productive - about as economically useful as building skyscrapers, then flying planes into them.

[Redhead]

Ok, let me rephrase the question. My english isnt perfect so perhaps people are misunderstanding.

What will motivate people to work?

[motion denied]

Ok, let me rephrase the question. My english isnt perfect so perhaps people are misunderstanding.

What will motivate people to work?

The need to. Labour would not be alienated in socialism, it would be the affirmation of human potentialities.

[cyu]

What will motivate people to work?

First part of the question is: Does the work actually need to be performed? If you can answer that part in the affirmative (no, grooming poodles for the rich does not count as necessary work), then you can move on to the second part.

As mentioned before, I'd say human motivation can be broken up into 3 parts:
1. Biological survival
2. Reproduction
3. Pride

Only the first is absolutely necessary. The second, while nice to have and necessary for the survival of the species, is not vital to any particular individual. The third is the least necessary but is part of both psychological health and the cultural machinery used in economic motivation.

The oldest form of motivation is to threaten people with death or pain. This includes extortion, intimidation, and slavery. In general, societies have marked such motivators as immoral. Why? I would say it is because there are more cooperative forms of motivation, and as a result, society marks less cooperative (and thus less efficient) methods as "immoral".

The second form of motivation is sex. You might imagine attempting to seduce someone in order to get them to do something for you. This form of motivation is in general more complex and thus difficult to leverage as a general form of economic motivation, so few economic systems incorporate sexual and reproductive motivators.

The last is pride - an entirely psychological and sociological motivator. It is the easiest of the three to manipulate. People have been convinced to sacrifice themselves for pride, kill others to defend their pride, or spend their entire lifetimes trying to achieve or maintain some sort of pride. Is greed a form of pride? I would say that in some sense, it is - although greed also plays into the other two motivators - in capitalist society, you'd starve without money - in addition, many individuals use money in an attempt to gain an upper hand in attracting mates.

[DOOM]

Think i have to specify a bit. When i mean slackers, i dont mean those who doesnt work as hard, or skips work somedays. Im talking about the ones who does not work at all, not because they are disabled or cant get work, but because they dont want to and therefore exploiting other people who actually contributes.

See, in communism, the dichotomy between work and free-time would be superseded, so this whole question is obsolete. There would be no hard workers and slackers at all, because there's no way to measure that.