On Anarchism

[primetime]

In an anarchist society, with the abolition of money, what exactly would replace it? what would become the currency? In anarchist society would all things usually bought in societies with standard currency, instead just be distributed due to necessity? Say if some individuals felt the need to buy material objects of no actual importance other than just being material, would that be prohibited or frowned upon?

[Cliff Paul]

In an anarchist society, with the abolition of money, what exactly would replace it?

Well the abolition of money is a concept that's hardly unique to Anarchists, in fact it's a central tenant of Marxism. The simple answer to your question is that there would be no need for money or markets because all labor would be directly social.

[Tim Cornelis]

What money is used in your workplace? When you produce a file, a report, or means of production, or an intermediate good do you sell it to your co-worker? No, because the social relations within your workplace are directly social. In capitalism, however, units of capital are constituted on the basis of private labour. Businesses, enterprises, and firms externally confront each other through commodity exchange. Commodity exchange, mediated by their universal equivalent money, arises when social labour is indirectly social. The private labours of private producers become social only when they confront each other in the market.

In a socialist society, the appropriation of wealth is done socially, not privately, and the commonly owned means of production are regulated and administrated through direct association of producers and consumers. Instead, the social product is disposed of without currency, it is either rationed on the basis of a sort of labour-point system or consumer goods are distributed freely, according to needs.

[Blake's Baby]

When tuberculosis is irradicated, what will replace it?

[mushroompizza]

Well in Marxism there will be little work because once the government is eradicated tech had become so advanced everyone needs were met and work would probably be useless. But in Anarchism there is no pre-stage were tech must evolve they want the government to disappear now, high tech or not!

[BIXX]

Well in Marxism there will be little work because once the government is eradicated tech had become so advanced everyone needs were met and work would probably be useless. But in Anarchism there is no pre-stage were tech must evolve they want the government to disappear now, high tech or not!
Why does anyone need to work at all?

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Why does anyone need to work at all?

To live obviously.

[Ele'ill]

To live obviously.


I think you'd be okay with this btw not saying you aren't, but shouldn't we be focusing on getting away from concepts like work/job and things being mandatory. When someone says, yeah you'll have to work you won't have a choice but don't worry it will be less hours I get kind of nauseous. Likewise when someone says, yeah but the work/job will be enjoyable I feel like I'm being lied to. We know that less hours, automation of tasks, perhaps the utilization of tech that gets opened up without the constraint of capital or whatever, the elimination of jobs/work and entire industries that are relevant only in relation to empire are probably possible but I really don't like the coercive nature of 'you have to in order to live'. We have to now in order to live. What authority is going to make me work to live?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

When tuberculosis is irradicated, what will replace it?

Well, according to many people on RL, labour tuberculosis, which is not as bad because it has the word "labour" in its name.

Although some brave souls have started exploring alternative avenues recently, including bittuberculosis.

[Црвена]

To live obviously.

Are you referring to the whole "He who does not work, shall not eat" thing? I thought that was only a temporary measure, and that it wouldn't be needed in a society where "work" is done because people enjoy it.

[Tim Cornelis]

If no one works, we all die. That doesn't mean A Revolutionary Tool believes that work will require external motivation in the future. He's just saying, I guess, to the folk that call for the "abolition of work" that purely intrinsically motivated creative and productive activity is still "work".

[Blake's Baby]

If we don't 'work' (expend energy to do stuff) then we all die because no crops get planted or harvested, no food gets processed or transported or distributed, power stations break down, the sewage system stops working, no trains run or whatever; we just end up sitting in the dark covered in shit screaming 'feed me Seymour!'. But Seymour never does feed us, because that's work too, and Seymour is at home covered in his own shit shouting for someone to come and feed him.

[Rafiq]

People simply don't grasp the magnitude of how many things they take for granted. Socialism will not be the end of problems, but the beginning. It will the the beginnings of a society that can approach problems as problems, with no pretenses to vanity.

[Antiochus]

If what you are asking is how can society rationally allocate goods and services without them becoming scarce to all due to over consumption or a natural disaster (i.e a hurricane wipes out coffee fields but people still want to drink coffee) no one here will give you a satisfactory answer. There are ideas off course, a "credit" card system that rations scarce commodities and perhaps gives people an incentive if they opt out of the good, so for example if you prefer tea to coffee you will be allotted slightly more tea in exchange for not drinking any coffee.

[The Feral Underclass]

I think you'd be okay with this btw not saying you aren't, but shouldn't we be focusing on getting away from concepts like work/job and things being mandatory. When someone says, yeah you'll have to work you won't have a choice but don't worry it will be less hours I get kind of nauseous. Likewise when someone says, yeah but the work/job will be enjoyable I feel like I'm being lied to. We know that less hours, automation of tasks, perhaps the utilization of tech that gets opened up without the constraint of capital or whatever, the elimination of jobs/work and entire industries that are relevant only in relation to empire are probably possible but I really don't like the coercive nature of 'you have to in order to live'. We have to now in order to live. What authority is going to make me work to live?


I don't understand this position at all. It makes no sense to me. If no one did any work ever, how do you imagine society would function?

What is fundamentally wrong with the idea of doing some work if it means you and your community can eat or have clean streets?

I don't get what the problem is...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[A Revolutionary Tool]

I think you'd be okay with this btw not saying you aren't, but shouldn't we be focusing on getting away from concepts like work/job and things being mandatory. When someone says, yeah you'll have to work you won't have a choice but don't worry it will be less hours I get kind of nauseous. Likewise when someone says, yeah but the work/job will be enjoyable I feel like I'm being lied to. We know that less hours, automation of tasks, perhaps the utilization of tech that gets opened up without the constraint of capital or whatever, the elimination of jobs/work and entire industries that are relevant only in relation to empire are probably possible but I really don't like the coercive nature of 'you have to in order to live'. We have to now in order to live. What authority is going to make me work to live?Yes I do believe we should be working towards not having to do work, but this is done through technology and automation and stuff like you mentioned. But when will that be actualized? In the mean time we have to be fed, clothed, and housed, and just this means work is going to be done on a continous basis. Until we can depend on technological advances to produce these things then we're just talking about visions that can't be realized in the real world. Advances in technology are exciting but we're not on that level yet, especially on the international level. The "coercive nature" of the very basic fact that we have to work to live is nature itself which says we have to have food and water to survive. I think people want more than just basic survival too, so people will work for other things too, even if they don't particularly enjoy the work.

I would definitely feel better with having a voice in the workplace and in the community though so that would give me a good reason to take part in the labor of society and I think it's important for people to also think of the division of labor so that people aren't in the same grind day in and out at a job they hate(especially after a few years or even devades). Marx famously wrote, "In communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic."

[Lord Testicles]

Yes I do believe we should be working towards not having to do work, but this is done through technology and automation and stuff like you mentioned. But when will that be actualized? In the mean time we have to be fed, clothed, and housed, and just this means work is going to be done on a continous basis. Until we can depend on technological advances to produce these things then we're just talking about visions that can't be realized in the real world. Advances in technology are exciting but we're not on that level yet, especially on the international level. The "coercive nature" of the very basic fact that we have to work to live is nature itself which says we have to have food and water to survive. I think people want more than just basic survival too, so people will work for other things too, even if they don't particularly enjoy the work.


Who or what would compel people to do work that they do not particulary enjoy especially when that work doesn't relate to their basic needs?

[Blake's Baby]

Who thinks that anything would?

If people want something, it needs to be created, even if that process isn't particualrly enjoyable. So if they want it (as in, want enough to put with something relatively unpleasant in the meantime) then they would.

If I want to cake, I have to get cake, even if getting cake is tedious. What's the problem with that?

[Ele'ill]

Who thinks that anything would?

If people want something, it needs to be created, even if that process isn't particualrly enjoyable. So if they want it (as in, want enough to put with something relatively unpleasant in the meantime) then they would.

If I want to cake, I have to get cake, even if getting cake is tedious. What's the problem with that?


I skimmed through the responses in this thread so far and it isn't that I don't want to respond to specific posts, just that I think this post here is the actual question. The question I asked has never gotten any type of coherent answer on this forum, ever. If people want something, as I mentioned here or elsewhere regarding fastfood as an example, they will create it, but only if they also want to create it and maintain it etc.. So i.e., if nobody wants to do sewage repairs, fast food, whatever, it won't happen, period, obviously. I can't see the future but imo I don't think its a stretch that people will do things, especially regarding food. Probably things that prevent lakes of shit from bubbling up and occupying living spaces. But what authority is going to create the options of work available and then enforce work/jobs/doing things/whatever-you-want-to-call-it. What managing body over work is going to tell me that I must participate in the role of worker, to make a society.

[The Feral Underclass]

If I want to cake, I have to get cake, even if getting cake is tedious. What's the problem with that?

There is none. In any case, I fucking love cake and it just so happens I also enjoy making it, so, I would happily make you some cake so you don't even have to do something you find tedious.

[The Feral Underclass]

if nobody wants to do sewage repairs, fast food, whatever, it won't happen, period, obviously.

But that's the point: No one wants to work. No one wants to go down a sewer and shovel shit. I mean, maybe there is someone out there who really wants that, but I can't imagine there being enough people to actually cover the entire rota of work necessary to administrate the world's sewage system.

Nevertheless, shovelling shit is a job that needs to be done. So as adults that have something that needs to be done in order to prevent disease and filth in our streets, and make the world in which we live function for everyone, we have to simply get over it and just do it.


I can't see the future but imo I don't think its a stretch that people will do things, especially regarding food. Probably things that prevent lakes of shit from bubbling up and occupying living spaces.

If you acknowledge this then I don't see what the issue is...


What managing body over work is going to tell me that I must participate in the role of worker, to make a society.

None, other than the internal motivation to ensure you and others don't starve, and the streets aren't swamped in shit. Myself and those around me not dying of cholera is enough to compel me to do something I don't want to do.

Ultimately, people can either participate in society or you know, not do that. But I don't understand a) why anyone would not want to do that and b) how they would survive?

[Ele'ill]

If you acknowledge this then I don't see what the issue is...


Who is going to force me to contribute?

[Antiochus]

Who is going to force me to contribute?

If you don't work, why should you eat? Capitalism forces people to work by the same force. Why can't we? Not taking into account people who can't work off course.

[Rafiq]

Who is going to force me to contribute?

If we want to speak in purely hypothetical, utopian terms, which are a testament to imagination and nothing more, one can imagine that maybe there could be something akin to universal basic income wherein life is unconditional, but better quality X or other such non-essential rewards, privileges and so on would require one to work.

To be clear, however, the only honest answer is that we don't know how things could work and can't have an honest idea. Ethically speaking, what would be in place would be in accordance with reason, in approximation to what is better for everyone.

[The Feral Underclass]

Who is going to force me to contribute?

As I said, no one. But why wouldn't you contribute and how would you survive if you chose not to?

[Ele'ill]

If you don't work, why should you eat? Capitalism forces people to work by the same force. Why can't we? Not taking into account people who can't work off course.

It sounds like you can, and you will. So be it but the coercive acts of authority against bodies, the lack of free association, autonomy, results in further insurrection and the destruction of a society that hasn't ever truly broken from the old. Your admission of this as some bold declaration against ethics/morality is fine, that's our playing field.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

How is anarchism going to make sure the streets aren't overflowing with shit? What authority is going to make sure the train gets there on time and my stomach is full at the end of the day? Voluntary labor?

[Cliff Paul]

How is anarchism going to make sure the streets aren't overflowing with shit? What authority is going to make sure the train gets there on time and my stomach is full at the end of the day? Voluntary labor?

*insert overused picture of picard facepalming*

[A Revolutionary Tool]

*insert overused picture of picard facepalming*
Thank you very much for that thoughtful post, it really adds to the discussion.

[Ele'ill]

How is anarchism going to make sure the streets aren't overflowing with shit? What authority is going to make sure the train gets there on time and my stomach is full at the end of the day? Voluntary labor?

You seem to be under the impression that this is a debate across left tendencies. It isn't. It is a question leveled at left tendencies. I am not a leftist. So far I have been more in agreement with large sections of the responses than I normally am when this topic comes up on this forum but I don't expect you to have picked up on this since there are 2 threads and a pm conversation illustrating what I'd cautiously call overlap. Just a clarification of your narrative.

[Cliff Paul]

Thank you very much for that thoughtful post, it really adds to the discussion.

Ok. Was your post aimed at anarchists in general? If so it's totally irrelevant because the idea that anarchism = no coercion / no authority / fuck you mom and dad I can smoke weed and play video games whenever I want is ridiculous.

Or was your post aimed at Mari3L? If that's the case it's totally irrelevant too since they explained their opinions on this issue already in the thread.

[Antiochus]

By choosing not to contribute to society whatsoever (and apparently taking from it, since you will certainly require food, housing, medical attention, roads etc...) you are inherently becoming a parasite. Biologically speaking parasites either kill their host or die first.

If you want to be separated from society, i.e live in a log cabin, no problem. Do so, have fun. But if you want to live in society, you have to contribute to it. I mean its fucking ridiculous to think otherwise. Compelling people to contribute to their OWN survival is coercive?

[A Revolutionary Tool]

And the answer is nowhere to be found. I wanted to redirect towards anarchism because it seems like we're way off the topic(you see the title of the thread is "on anarchism"). It's directed at the people who seem to think I'm saying we need to put a gun to your back for anything to get done, this seems to be what people are implying. What force am I going to use, how are people ever going to do work they don't really want to do unless I forcefully make them do it? Yet anarchists won't have any of these problems because of...? The street still needs to not be overflowing with shit, yet nobody wants to do that work, who is going to make them?

[A Revolutionary Tool]

You seem to be under the impression that this is a debate across left tendencies. It isn't. It is a question leveled at left tendencies. I am not a leftist. So far I have been more in agreement with large sections of the responses than I normally am when this topic comes up on this forum but I don't expect you to have picked up on this since there are 2 threads and a pm conversation illustrating what I'd cautiously call overlap. Just a clarification of your narrative.
If you're talking about the thread where you quote Disposable Garbage Unit about the human body being a great example of anarchist economics then you haven't really said anything much different in this thread than you did in the other.

My point was if anarchists seem to think we can live in a society without coercion and the streets aren't full of shit, then somewhere down the line someone is doing work they're probably not enjoying but they're doing it voluntarily, according to that logic. So when we're presuming right off the bat that I'm saying we need to force people to do these things like I'm sending them to the gulag or something and can't recognize that people can do things they don't want to do voluntarily(because the benefit might outweigh their personal objections) then it just seems extremely disingenuous. Like when I say people will do work they don't find enjoyable if they know they're getting something they want out of it I'm questioned what would compel people to do that work?! I said it right there, do people lack reading comprehension skills or what?! I might spend my time getting trash off the streets not because I like to do that work but because I don't want to live in a dump. It seems like I can say that a few times and the question is still "but what about coercion."

[Rafiq]

There are plenty of lessons to be learned in this domain. After assuming power, the bolsheviks and the working people knew very quickly that there was a price for freedom: That freedom was not free.


The enemies of the working people, the landowners and capitalists say that the workers and peasants cannot live without them. "If it were not for us," they say, "there would be nobody to maintain order, to give out work, and to compel people to work. If it were not for us everything would collapse, and the state would fall to pieces. We have been driven away, but chaos will bring us back again." But this sort of talk by the landowners and capitalists will not confuse, intimidate, or deceive the workers and peasants. An army needs the strictest discipline; nevertheless the class-conscious workers succeeded in uniting the peasants, succeeded in taking the old tsarist officers into their service, succeeded in building a victorious army.

The Red Army established unprecedentedly firm discipline-not by means of the lash, but based on the intelligence, loyalty and devotion of the workers and peasants themselves.

And so, to save the working people from the yoke of the landowners and capitalists for ever, to save them from the restoration of their power, it is necessary to build up a great Red Army of Labour. That army will be invincible if it is cemented by labour discipline. The workers and peasants must and will prove that they can properly distribute labour, establish devoted discipline and ensure loyalty in working for the common good, and can do it themselves, without the landowners and in spite of them, without the capitalists and in spite of them.

Labour discipline, enthusiasm for work, readiness for self-sacrifice, close alliance between the peasants and the workers-this is what will save the working people from the oppression of the landowners and capitalists for ever.


Not only is self-discipline not opposed to freedom, it is a pre-condition for it. It is only with great discipline, enthusiasm and unconditional devotion that the ruling classes can be defeated. The pre-conditions for our future society must be found within the mass-movement which seeks to overthrow those in power today, and this is no easy task. Through the course of struggle, including the process of revolution, the proletariat will be equipped with years of experienced forged in the fires of vigorous struggles that we in this present moment can ever even hope to conceive.

But a movement which builds itself initially on the fight for small demands would inevitably decay into compromise, betrayal and conformity to the existing order. That is why any and every mass movement will have to be led by the eternal ideas of Communism, and true to a tradition which has proceeded us by over a hundred years. When the Bolsheviks were faced with mass betrayal, they had the spirit of Marx firmly in their hearts, and perfectly approximated it to their present time. The self-consciousness of the working movement is embodied by the ultimate expression of self-conscious theory, the Marxist vanguard.

[Marcus Clayman]

I think primitivists naturalists and permaculturalists would challenge a lot of the assumptions about how much work is needed to produce the things we need.

this is an age old debate with 3 historic conclusions

The popular epithet is this:
"From each according to ability to each according to need."

But who can decide what someone else needs? More liberally minded folks are committed to more self defined free access to resources.

"From each acc to abil, to each acc to desire"

However more conservative minded folks have gone the other direction and keeping monitary systems In tact which usually means some sort of state apparatus.

"From each acc to abil, to each acc to contribution"

as a homeless activist, harm reduction and peer support advocate, I've learned in almost any social need, it is cheaper and easier to provide free access to the abundance of our society then providing emergency services, and mediating the conficts that emerge from poverty. In studies where homeless people are given a basic income no quesfiins asked, just to see what happens, they transform their livez and become mostly self sustaining. In ananarchist society the minor cost of taking care of those depressed, addicts, disabled, or otherwise incompetent or dependent individuals would hopefully be integrated into ourcommunities not be considered something extra we have to do since these are, after all, realities. Shit happens, emergencies happen, people get hurt and sick, tired, phisically, and emotionally. All work in an anarchist society, in my opinion should be treated like social work, and while we will always be having conversations just as we do today, peer support workers will hhave more access to resources to take care of their peer groups needs more effectively.

Other than those who cannot or will not work, everyone else will be involved in voluntarily communal activities and sharing in the abundance of their collective labor. Bear in mind that producers and consumers didn't create money to facilitate exchange. merchants, business people, nobles, governments, and monopolists did. A more democratic means of exchange would be direct trade. This however is not as efficient and mutually benificial as large scale communal production and distribution even if a handful of cheaters take advantage of the system.

The amount of energy we spend overseeing and administering services, making sure noone gets more than they "deserve" would better be spent facilitating community discussions on needs, abilities and trying to include and empower those left out of the system to particiapate. Even where this does not work its still easier to just give stuff away freely then it is to police one another.

[consuming negativity]

If you don't work, why should you eat? Capitalism forces people to work by the same force. Why can't we? Not taking into account people who can't work off course.

because this attitude is the entire problem and is mutually exclusive with a classless society devoid of hierarchical social relations. the only reason we're even getting violent about shit in the first place is because it's not our choice to make. communism is not about collectivism and it hasn't ever been. the idea isn't to have some all-powerful world-owning state capitalist system that doles out paychecks and throws people into gulags. the bolsheviks did that shit because that was the only choice they had in a global capitalist political economy. if you're talking about how we can coerce people into doing X or Y, you've already gone down the road of reaction. the point is not to coerce, it is to recognize that people are perfectly capable and willing to do what needs to be done to maintain a much healthier, more enjoyable existence than exists now with the capitalist mode of production. people aren't lazy, they just don't want to work 60 hours a week doing three repetitive motions that require zero brain power so they can get paid jack shit to be spent on products designed to break and be more expensive to fix than buying a new one.

[consuming negativity]

i'll clean the goddamn sewers and if you won't you're a crybaby and i'll fling the shit at you when i bring it back up to the surface and there won't even be cops to arrest me for it you whiny little shit

[BIXX]

These threads always revolve around a discussion of society and its perpetuation, which is why we always see the discussion unable to move beyond the way we already live- alienated, coerced, restricted, etc...

Also, I highly doubt that people would consider a lot of the things we bring up as issues a problem. Public transportation, for example, probably wouldn't be considered as much of an issue due to the freeing of time, not needing to go to a far away workplace, being obligated to give their labour to a functioning society- instead working on individualized projects, for your own initiative and actualization. I doubt fast food would continue to be made en mass, or that restaurants would even exist as we know them. Sewage might still be an issue but I would imagine that it would be solved with similar solutions to composting toilets or a generally lower population.

Just some examples but I just think the thinking about these "issues" isn't broad enough.

[Ele'ill]

If you're talking about the thread where you quote Disposable Garbage Unit about the human body being a great example of anarchist economics then you haven't really said anything much different in this thread than you did in the other.

Yes, I have a consistent position, that is another thread on the same topic.


My point was if anarchists seem to think we can live in a society without coercion and the streets aren't full of shit, then somewhere down the line someone is doing work they're probably not enjoying but they're doing it voluntarily, according to that logic. So when we're presuming right off the bat that I'm saying we need to force people to do these things like I'm sending them to the gulag or something and can't recognize that people can do things they don't want to do voluntarily(because the benefit might outweigh their personal objections) then it just seems extremely disingenuous. Like when I say people will do work they don't find enjoyable if they know they're getting something they want out of it I'm questioned what would compel people to do that work?! I said it right there, do people lack reading comprehension skills or what?! I might spend my time getting trash off the streets not because I like to do that work but because I don't want to live in a dump. It seems like I can say that a few times and the question is still "but what about coercion."

When someone says, 'if you don't work you will starve what right do you have to be a parasite etc' it is entirely different from what you are beginning to describe above, which is what I have briefly described and what TGDU was beginning to illustrate with their human body analogy. The society we know, civilization, 'the metropolis' shouldn't be preserved in that it shouldn't become our main goal to keep everything as it is. Once people start preconfiguring it always seems a desperate attempt to no simply maintain what could be useful infrastructure but maintain the order of our current time. Yes, "you will be forced to contribute", here and in past discussions on this forum, has involved discussion of horrible institutions to manage and enforce the work-survive existance, i.e. courts, cops, prisons, etc..

[Cliff Paul]

Mari3L what's your opinion on Bob Black? Specifically, the abolition of work?

[Ele'ill]

iirc i thought it was okay but I didn't think the conclusion was severe enough regarding the changes that would occur (imo) although it might have touched on some topics. At this point I think I'm more interested in following a *broad but specific theoretical on say, insurrectionary communism/communisation to think about what could happen than a text that seems so linear.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Yes, I have a consistent position, that is another thread on the same topic.



When someone says, 'if you don't work you will starve what right do you have to be a parasite etc' it is entirely different from what you are beginning to describe above, which is what I have briefly described and what TGDU was beginning to illustrate with their human body analogy. The society we know, civilization, 'the metropolis' shouldn't be preserved in that it shouldn't become our main goal to keep everything as it is. Once people start preconfiguring it always seems a desperate attempt to no simply maintain what could be useful infrastructure but maintain the order of our current time. Yes, "you will be forced to contribute", here and in past discussions on this forum, has involved discussion of horrible institutions to manage and enforce the work-survive existance, i.e. courts, cops, prisons, etc..

Well it seems like you're basing these things off of what other people say, not what I said. I can't speak for everybody on this forum, a lot of people say things I can't agree with (like when there's people being apologists for the massive amounts of rape by Soviet soldiers during WWII). When I say people need to work to live it's based off of the fact that people need to be fed. So when people ask questions like "why do we have to work" it's ridiculous from a human standpoint. If someone is really to believe we don't have to work then they don't understand reality so what they have to say about reality has to be taken with a ton of salt. Of course the person that asks this presupposes that they'll be able to live still, that they'll be able to eat and not starve to death, so the question is really "why should I have to work?" Or a question that gives it better context "why should I have to work when others can do the work?"

If you don't want any type of courts what is going to happen during the revoltion? Executions with no trial? Just let people free to go that are enemies of the revolution? There's no court to try them, no prison to hold them, and the thought of forcing them to work goes against everything you believe right?

[The Feral Underclass]

I don't think Mari3L is criticising the need to do work to live, but brining into question the fundamental basis that motivates the ideology behind the issue of work for certain sections of the communist movement.

When Mari3L asks why do we have to work or by what authority compels us to work, it is not so much a literal question, but a deconstruction of the very notion of what work is, why work is, how work is understood socially by those who do it and ultimately what motivates those who say it is necessary -- the issue of whether it is necessary is irrelevant.

I think. I could be wrong.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

It's not a question of wanting to work in a sewer but of not wanting shit piled up in the street. If not having shit piled up in the street is important to me, then yeah I'm gonna go work in the sewer to prevent that from happening if that's the only way to do it.

To illustrate this in the real world, in Detroit due to budget cuts the city stopped mowing grass at city parks. The grass grew as high as a person and parents obviously were not comfortable with letting their children play in a park in that condition. So what did they do? People with lawn mowers came and did it themselves so that the park could still function. Now prior to this event if you had asked any of these people if they wanted to mow grass on municipal property for no money I'm pretty confident that they would have said no, but the conditions they lived in changed and they responded.

Honestly the forced work marxists that we have show up in every one of these threads have the ugliest conception of humanity, thank god you fuckers will never have power over anyone other than an unfortunate spouse and some possible offspring.