Lazy People/People who object to doing work [Archive]

Clarksist

25th July 2005, 05:18

To answer your first question there are many solutions.

Probably the best one I've come up with (and coincidently the best one I've ever heard of) is to eliminate their voting rights. They could still live in the area, they just wouldn't have a say in what happens.

To answer your question about artists:

Art is a MAJOR contribution to society. Of course, this is coming from an artist when I say this, masterpieces do take time for some artists. And to prevent them from working in their ideal is wrong. But there should be some output by artists during say a "grading period" of a year or so. This way people aren't just "artists" and then sit on their ass. Instead they have to produce art at least once a year.

25th July 2005, 05:30

they would be banished. i have a hard time believing there would be more than a few people that wouldnt work at all.

Nobody needs to be banished. That is completely foolish.

Probably the best one I've come up with (and coincidently the best one I've ever heard of) is to eliminate their voting rights. They could still live in the area, they just wouldn't have a say in what happens.

Rights cannot and should not ever be taken away. Voting isn't a privilege it is a right.

Art is a MAFOR contribution to society. Of course, this is coming from an artist when I say this, masterpieces do take time for some artists. And to prevent them from working in their ideal is wrong. But there should be some output by artists during say a "grading period" of a year or so. This way people aren't just "artists" and then sit on their ass. Instead they have to produce art at least once a year.

Artists can be artists all they want. They don't need to be regulated at all, as they are contributing to society. People can be lazy, but other people won't like them. It's that simple. People won't sit on their asses forever so this isn't really a problem, though.

violencia.Proletariat

25th July 2005, 05:38

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 11:59 PM

Also, what if the Laziness was not necasarily a refusal to do any work at all, but a situation where an artist was creating art but it was a long process and he did not contribute anything to society for a long time, but was still working. How would this be dealt with. I sure hope you aren't going to say that art would be banned.
yeah no problem if you want to do art. but i mean, 4 hours or maybe even less a day of work is not that much. so i dont see what the problem is with doing both?

chaval

25th July 2005, 05:48

violencia.Proletariat

25th July 2005, 05:51

i dont think you should deny people food or water. its simple, if they dont want to contribute in any way they wont be apart of the community, but that doesnt mean they should starve to death.

25th July 2005, 05:53

i think lazar has a point. forcing people to work sounds like something out of a dictatorship. if people dont wanna work then tahts their decision. if they want to sit around on their ass so be it. they can pay the consequences by not collecting in the spoils of labour. for example, imagine a community of 100 people where 10 are lazy bums but 90 like working hard. the 90 people can share all the food and supplies and etc that they produce. the ten other guys dont get any of the benefits cause they didnt contribute. its a self correcting system much like the ones scandanavians already have.
i think you can only go on welfare there for one year while you must be looking for a job really hard....hmphh i htink its thats how it worked, i forget, either way the lazy man is F-ed if he doesnt start doing something.

I think you missed my point. Nothing needs to be done about lazy people. Lazy people can have all the access to everything that everybody else has access to. Why? Because it's their right to. People can choose to not work. But other people won't like them. Why not work for a few hours a day doing something you like? I also think "lazy" people don't really exist. People are only lazy when they have to do something they don't like. And people can't sit around and do nothing forever!

Clarksist

25th July 2005, 06:10

Rights cannot and should not ever be taken away. Voting isn't a privilege it is a right.

Well rights can be taken away. And in some cases they should be taken away.

Criminals deserve to have some rights stricken from them. And feeding off society while contributing nothing to it is a crime in a society built around the trust of "From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs."

And don't give me the, "We shouldn't punish criminals!" routine. You have to give criminals some punishment if you want them to fucken stop what they are doing. Rehabilitation isn't just a magic word you can tac onto a situation and make it all better.

Nothing needs to be done about lazy people. Lazy people can have all the access to everything that everybody else has access to. Why? Because it's their right to. People can choose to not work. But other people won't like them.

I'm not going to trust everyone is going to work based on popularity. That just doesn't seem like a solid investment of trust.

People are only lazy when they have to do something they don't like.

I completely agree. I think many people would work all day if by work you mean play video games and smoke pot, hell I'd do that all day. And during summer break I pretty much do.

But in a communist society you can't expect to give everyone the equal amount of rights if they aren't all pitching in on their part. At least, not unless you want counter-revolutions to form.

25th July 2005, 06:19

Well rights can be taken away. And in some cases they should be taken away.

Criminals deserve to have some rights stricken from them. And feeding off society while contributing nothing to it is a crime in a society built around the trust of "From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs."

And don't give me the, "We shouldn't punish criminals!" routine. You have to give criminals some punishment if you want them to fucken stop what they are doing. Rehabilitation isn't just a magic word you can tac onto a situation and make it all better.

Yes criminals should be punished. And I made a mistake by generalizing about rights.

I'm not going to trust everyone is going to work based on popularity. That just doesn't seem like a solid investment of trust.

Why not? People can work doing what they love, be accepted in their community and live happily with a feeling of satisfaction; or people can not work at all, be shunned by their community, and sit doing nothing forever, which they would obviously get bored of doing and go do something they enjoy. Then they are working. Then they are accepted by the community.
People will work because they enjoy it. Why wouldn't they do something they enjoy?

I completely agree. I think many people would work all day if by work you mean play video games and smoke pot, hell I'd do that all day. And during summer break I pretty much do.

What do you mean by this? That people can't work at a job and like it? I don't understand what you're trying to imply.

But in a communist society you can't expect to give everyone the equal amount of rights if they aren't all pitching in on their part. At least, not unless you want counter-revolutions to form.

Instead of using legal action you use the influence of society, peer pressure, the need of acceptance to keep people working.

Clarksist

25th July 2005, 06:41

What do you mean by this? That people can't work at a job and like it? I don't understand what you're trying to imply.

I'm saying that many people, really all they want to do is smoke pot and play video games. And your saying that they would eventually do something they want. Well if society gives em everything they need, maybe what they'll do won't benefit society.

Instead of using legal action you use the influence of society, peer pressure, the need of acceptance to keep people working.

Sorry, but many people don't CARE what others think of them. What about these people? All these solutions seem hackneyed and over-generalized.

RATMFan

25th July 2005, 06:47

Don't you all feel that if the ones who were lazy just didn't work, that the ones who were working would eventualy feel like damn, whats the point? It seems like it would be a slippery slope

25th July 2005, 06:54

I'm saying that many people, really all they want to do is smoke pot and play video games. And your saying that they would eventually do something they want. Well if society gives em everything they need, maybe what they'll do won't benefit society.

Sorry, but many people don't CARE what others think of them. What about these people? All these solutions seem hackneyed and over-generalized.

Everybody cares what others think of them, no matter how they act. If they were completely shunned by everybody, it would have a tremendous impact on them. Many people just smoke pot and play video games because work nowadays is strenuous and not very fulfilling. Also, how long could they smoke pot and play video games for if everybody hated them? Not forever. And even if they did, the percentage of people not working would be a very small percentage. Probably a good equivalent to the amount of homeless people in today's society.

Don't you all feel that if the ones who were lazy just didn't work, that the ones who were working would eventualy feel like damn, whats the point? It seems like it would be a slippery slope

Why would they feel like that? Remember, in communism the majority of people will enjoy doing their jobs, so why would they want to stop?

Hiero

25th July 2005, 07:13

This style question come up again and again. The problem is we are talking about Communism, a very far away in time society.

Communism is the highest stage of humans organising themselves in a Society. So it is really hard to say "what would we do with lazy people". Its even hard to define what a lazy person would be like, since we are using capitalist standards.

First thing is to understand how work is allocated. We know how it is allocated in capitalist society, and we know a bit from socialist societies. Its difficult to understand how work is going to be allocated in a communist society. I think Marx in the communist manifesto talked a bit about it becoming more naturally for work to come and go as it is needed and workers come and go on a job while society needs it. So i guess a lazy person would be one not to keep in the flow of what is going on.

I think its a bit medival fantasy thinking to say they will be ostracised. I dont think that human society is going to collapse due to lazy people.

But the question is a hard one, its like asking what type of houses we are going to live in the future dome or square? I haven't read large amounts of Marx and Engels, but i think they spent more time criticising capitalism and writing about how society may be organised in a Socialist period.

Basically what im trying to say is it's not that important to know. So don't stay lying awake at night, or worry about what anti communist may say about the flaws of communism and lazy people. The important thing is to think about lazy people and work in the socialist period.

One way you can answer this is to look at how lazy people live in capitalist soceity. There is actually a whole class that are considered lazy, the lumpen proleteriat which live off welfare and get caught in the welfare trap. Then there are thoose who cut corners at work, write faulty invovices, or high profile people who even break capitalist corporate laws.

So maybe we should look at the already "lazy" people who are unfit for socialist standards of work in the capitalist society.

anomaly

25th July 2005, 07:15

If someone isn't working, why can't the majority of people, acting in a democratic manner, punish them? Do we really want a communism where the individual has power over the collective? Most people will realize the utter importance of working ('If I don't work, I don't eat, because there won't be enough food'). Those who do not will surely face some collectively-decided consequences.

25th July 2005, 07:21

Clarksist

25th July 2005, 07:48

Everybody cares what others think of them, no matter how they act. If they were completely shunned by everybody, it would have a tremendous impact on them.

No, not everybody. What about sociopaths who feel no emotions based on other people? They wouldn't give a fuck.

Many people just smoke pot and play video games because work nowadays is strenuous and not very fulfilling. Also, how long could they smoke pot and play video games for if everybody hated them? Not forever. And even if they did, the percentage of people not working would be a very small percentage. Probably a good equivalent to the amount of homeless people in today's society.

Or, people smoke and putz around cause they like doing that the MOST. Plus, the other people not doing anything to benefit society would support those hurting society.

Slowly this "peer pressue" starts withering away. I mean commies are ostrasized in this capitalist world. And yet look at all us commies still going strong.

Also, most people aren't homeless because they are lazy. And don't just pull numbers out of your ass. It hurts the argument.

Communism is the highest stage of humans organising themselves in a Society. So it is really hard to say "what would we do with lazy people". Its even hard to define what a lazy person would be like, since we are using capitalist standards.

Says who? How do we know if its the "highest stage" of human organization. That's just a baseless assumption. Marx said it was with Dialectical Materialism. Dialectical Materialism = looking at history and labelling it. You can't predict what will happen by simply labelling the past.

And Lazy is a word. We are talking about the meaning for the word that is used NOWADAYS.

Basically what im trying to say is it's not that important to know.

It is man. Its gigantic when you consider that it may determine the success of communism in the world. If everyone started dropping out of the work force because other people are doing it and they are getting away with it, you immediately have a majorly adversely affected workforce.

If someone isn't working, why can't the majority of people, acting in a democratic manner, punish them?

Time constraints mainly would push that back. I would say that a "If you can't work, you can't vote," blanket rule would suffice.

25th July 2005, 07:58

In a society based around labor, not working would be completely untolerable. I'm saying that people that don't work will be so disliked that they won't even be able to talk to them. It will be ingrained in society to the very core that if you don't work, you are a horrible person.

I honestly believe that laziness won't be as big of a problem as you are making it seem. If you take people nowadays and put them in a communist society, then yes. But the laziness you are talking about is completely relevant only in capitalism. The amount of laziness plummets when you improve the working conditions, decrease amount of hours to work, make it easy to switch careers, remove money, etc...

anomaly

25th July 2005, 08:00

Time constraints? Perhaps. I suppose there would be some sort of trial, with all the people of the commune acting as the jury. People would notice the 'lazy person' and then he would go to a trial probably. Then, he'd plead his case. After this, the people can decide whether he should stay or go. There are other punishments possible, of course, besides banishment. But I guess that would be how the punishment would be decided. I don't know if suspending the persons voting rights would always be enoough. What if someone didn't work for months? Other punishments will neccesarily exist.

guerillablack

25th July 2005, 08:08

no damn artists is gonna get fruits of the community's labor. he has to do that as hobby, im sorry.

Clarksist

25th July 2005, 08:13

In a society based around labor, not working would be completely untolerable. I'm saying that people that don't work will be so disliked that they won't even be able to talk to them. It will be ingrained in society to the very core that if you don't work, you are a horrible person.

That doesn't mean people wouldn't. Your argument is that they shouldn't be punishment, that social exclusion would be enough.

I propose the restricted voting rights for people who aren't giving to the society.

I don't know if suspending the persons voting rights would always be enoough.

It might be when laws that arose that were more harsh towards non-workers.

no damn artists is gonna get fruits of the community's labor. he has to do that as hobby, im sorry.

Art is essential to thelounge time of other workers so that they can be more efficient. Music, movies, etc.

Mujer Libre

25th July 2005, 09:03

I think we need to stop thinking about work in the way we think about it now; the drudgery of going to work every day, probably doing something you hate or which at the least bores you. I'd assume that in a communist society, since people would have access to better, free education they would have access to a wider range of occupations; so hopefully they will find something that interests them.

Also, the authoritarian top-down structure of the workplace would be gone, so workers would presumably make their workplaces better, more interesting etc. And because workers control their place of work, they have a real interest in what's going on.

People could also pursue broader roles at work, rather than repetitively doing the same tasks over and over again.

You'd think that in these better working conditions, very few people would choose to not work at all.

I know I haven't really answered the question, just put a different spin on things, but hey, I think I have a fever so I'm not too coherent.

Hiero

25th July 2005, 10:02

That's just a baseless assumption. Marx said it was with Dialectical Materialism. Dialectical Materialism = looking at history and labelling it. You can't predict what will happen by simply labelling the past.

Actually you can. Marxism is the theory that there is objective truth, that like science things are controled by laws outside the control of man. Laws only change when economic bases are changed, they change through class war.

"All history this far has been a history of class war". Once there are know classes there is no class war so society will not reorganise itself.

Its called theory, far from baseless assumptions.

redstar2000

25th July 2005, 18:02

Originally posted by Thread Title
Lazy People/People who object to doing work

When I saw that, I thought it was another thread about me. :P

I never did "an honest day's work" in my life if I could possibly avoid it. Nor did I ever miss a chance to fuck off on the job.

"Laziness" makes sense under capitalism. The harder you work, the more money you make for the boss.

Is that "wacko" or what?

Now communism, we assume, is a rational system. Everyone "gets what they need" within reason. Everyone is aware that "too much fucking off" means shortages in what we need.

To be sure, someone could live and do nothing but "smoke pot and play video games" -- though it would be a rather boring existence in my opinion.

But pot must be grown and transported. Video games must be manufactured and shipped...and they require electricity to work. If the "pot-smoking gamer" is not aware of these facts, he soon will be -- when there's no pot to be had and no video games either...and maybe even no electricity.

The actual amount of time that the average person spends in productive labor is likely to be much less than under capitalism -- where you either find yourself working 50 or 60 hours a week or else you can't find a job at all.

Some years ago, I saw an estimate by some bourgeois economists that by 2020, we could all work an 8-hour week...if work were evenly divided among all capable adults.

And they didn't take into account how much totally useless "work" actually takes place.

Then, as others here have noted, without the economic pressure to "get a job, any job" in order to survive, people will inevitably gravitate to jobs that are attractive to them.

If you enjoy what you're doing, know that it's socially useful work, have good working conditions, can determine yourself when you need some time off, etc., what would you gain by not working?

Boredom, that's what. There are plenty of people at the higher levels of capitalist society who "do not have to work"...and yet they do. Indeed, some of them find their work so absorbing that they freely put in 70 or 80 or 90 hours a week.

We might very well end up with a situation where people who do all the basic maintenance involved in keeping society running have very short work weeks...while the people with "fun jobs" work very long work weeks entirely of their own volition.

Others have also noted the effects of social pressure on the "lazy guy". If you are or appear to be a useless drone, then your only friends will be other drones. People may speak to you in public with pity or contempt in their voices. Characters in the media who are drones will be portrayed as fools, idiots, or parasites.

If you choose to call yourself an "artist", then you'd better be working your ass off to produce some good art...otherwise your "disguise" won't work. People will know that real artists do work their asses off...they're the very opposite of fuck-offs.

Communist society is unlikely to begrudge people a year or two of idleness to "figure out what they want to do"...particularly if it can be shown that a serious effort is being made to do that.

Otherwise...well, the "lazy guy" will survive...but that's about all. If "consumer goodies" are rationed (as from time to time they may be), he will be at the bottom of the list.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

Amusing Scrotum

25th July 2005, 18:49

Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't Marx at some point refer to how what are considered natural human instincts, greed, laziness etc. are not at all natural. He refers to other races, American Indians, I think and Eskimos; And talks about how these groups of people showed none of the flaws, an average Western person showed.
So Marx's point was that through time human impulses could be changed. So for example a third generation worker in a Communist society, would have a far better work ethic and understanding of a Communist society than a first generation Communist worker. Therefore over time negative human traits like greed and laziness would disapear. Seems hopeful, but just take into consideration how terrible male attitudes were towards women a hundred years ago and how far they have advanced since then.
Also to think that Communism is the highest stage of human development is plain wrong. People living under a Monarchy would think Capitalism and limited democracy was brilliant. Therefore we must not discount that one day another theory will emerge which is an advance of Communism. However, until that day, we strive to achieve mass Communism.

Clarksist

25th July 2005, 19:36

"All history this far has been a history of class war". Once there are know classes there is no class war so society will not reorganise itself.

Just because history has been a history of class war, doesn't mean the future will. All I'm saying is that there is no way to prove that Communism is the human race's final organizing structure.

But pot must be grown and transported. Video games must be manufactured and shipped...and they require electricity to work. If the "pot-smoking gamer" is not aware of these facts, he soon will be -- when there's no pot to be had and no video games either...and maybe even no electricity.

Pot can be grown in your backyard, and once you have a few video games then that is that. As for electricity, yeah it probably will go out if there is NO PUNISHMENT for being idle.

The argument is over the punishment, and voting rights being taken away seems a perfect place to start. If you won't help society, you can't make decisions for it.

To be sure, someone could live and do nothing but "smoke pot and play video games" -- though it would be a rather boring existence in my opinion.

Playing Pokemon would drive me up the walls, but some people eat that shit up.

Others have also noted the effects of social pressure on the "lazy guy". If you are or appear to be a useless drone, then your only friends will be other drones. People may speak to you in public with pity or contempt in their voices. Characters in the media who are drones will be portrayed as fools, idiots, or parasites.

Again, the same thing happens to us communists. We are constantly told by the overwhelming majority that we are useless, lazy, etc. and yet look at us still being communists.

Social contempt is simply not enough for some people.

People will know that real artists do work their asses off...they're the very opposite of fuck-offs.

I'm sorry did you say "real artists"? Some artists who make abstract art, many people wouldn't call artists. Some people don't consider photographers as artists. So many people would be held in social contempt merely out of the art style they choose... and these would be the "real artists" you speak of.

He refers to other races, American Indians, I think and Eskimos; And talks about how these groups of people showed none of the flaws, an average Western person showed.

Native Americans were greedy and some were lazy. They had trade capitalism working (at least most tribes we know of today were).

25th July 2005, 19:39

Native Americans were greedy and some were lazy.

Native Americans taht are completely isolated from the capitalist system? Could you prove that please?

violencia.Proletariat

25th July 2005, 20:02

i thought native americans were very communal, especially with land. and that a tribe would go without food before one person would. please correct me if i am wrong.

Clarksist

25th July 2005, 20:10

Native Americans taht are completely isolated from the capitalist system? Could you prove that please?

Many Native Americans were working with trade capitalism. And just look at the Mayans who raped and pillaged other nations (the Aztecs as well) just for gold. And all the tribes that warred over turquoise.

i thought native americans were very communal, especially with land. and that a tribe would go without food before one person would. please correct me if i am wrong.

Some were, some weren't. Native Americans were a very diverse group of civilizations.

But some plains indians had old ladies protect crops from animals if the men had gone... because they felt that if a few old women died it was no big loss.

Think about that before you talk about romanticised visions of Native Americans.

violencia.Proletariat

25th July 2005, 20:19

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 03:10 PM

Some were, some weren't. Native Americans were a very diverse group of civilizations.

But some plains indians had old ladies protect crops from animals if the men had gone... because they felt that if a few old women died it was no big loss.

Think about that before you talk about romanticised visions of Native Americans.
i dont have that view. but your right about some being different because in some tribes and older woman would decide who the cheif was.

25th July 2005, 20:21

We're not talking about the mayans or any of them, who have developed to a point where there were classes. I'm talking about primitive native americans who didn't farm or didn't receive all their food from farming. Tribal communism is what I'm talking about.

Clarksist

25th July 2005, 20:51

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 01:21 PM
We're not talking about the mayans or any of them, who have developed to a point where there were classes. I'm talking about primitive native americans who didn't farm or didn't receive all their food from farming. Tribal communism is what I'm talking about.
Ok, next time clarify what you mean, as saying "Native Americans" means all the tribes on North and South American continents. That's a LOT of different tribes.

But to be absolutely fair, Tribal Communism in the Native American sense had a hierarchy and had its own prejudices and imperfections.

25th July 2005, 21:02

My mistake.

But to be absolutely fair, Tribal Communism in the Native American sense had a hierarchy and had its own prejudices and imperfections.

Could you go into more detail on this please?

Clarksist

25th July 2005, 21:17

Could you go into more detail on this please?

Many Native American tribes (who practiced tribal communism) did strange things to their children, to seperate them from the other tribes so that when they grew up they wouldn't mate with an "impure" being.

Also many tribes would leave their babies in a secluded place to starve to death if they had deformities.

And almost all tribes had prejudice based on age. The tribe "elders" would make decisions, and no one else would be able to. Those who were old but weren't "elders" were usually not taken care of, so they died a very unpleasant death.

Mujer Libre

26th July 2005, 01:19

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 06:36 PM

But pot must be grown and transported. Video games must be manufactured and shipped...and they require electricity to work. If the "pot-smoking gamer" is not aware of these facts, he soon will be -- when there's no pot to be had and no video games either...and maybe even no electricity.

Pot can be grown in your backyard, and once you have a few video games then that is that. As for electricity, yeah it probably will go out if there is NO PUNISHMENT for being idle.

The argument is over the punishment, and voting rights being taken away seems a perfect place to start. If you won't help society, you can't make decisions for it.

Don't you think not having electricity is punishment enough? I'm pretty sure that's what Redstar was getting at. If people don't work, they don't get the things they need or want; whereas under capitalism people try to slack off as much as they can because they don't get any benefit for working harder, their boss does.

And I've never heard a communist being referred to as lazy, more like "misguided, stupid, evil" etc...

And a "real artist" would be someone who produces art for a reason I guess. Even abstract art is well thought out and planned in some way. It would be easy to tell them apart from someone who just churned out stuff with no motive.

Clarksist

26th July 2005, 01:31

Don't you think not having electricity is punishment enough? I'm pretty sure that's what Redstar was getting at. If people don't work, they don't get the things they need or want;

Under communism EVERYONE gets what they NEED. And probably within reason, what they WANT. But Red Star 2000 never mentioned actually punishing them.

The only way electricity would go out is if enough people stopped working.

And a "real artist" would be someone who produces art for a reason I guess. Even abstract art is well thought out and planned in some way. It would be easy to tell them apart from someone who just churned out stuff with no motive.

I agree. But some people would say that abstract art WAS just churned out.

So I think you have to have some kind of tab on people claiming to be artists, you know what I mean?

Amusing Scrotum

26th July 2005, 01:39

Sorry to clear up my point about the indians, which seems to have started a debate.

It wasn't Marx himself who referred to the indians, as I incorrectly stated. It was Chris Harman in his book - "How Marxism works."

Below is the passage which I was refering to, about how societies can have different goals and attitudes. Therefore in a Communist society which stressed co-operation, laziness would be virtually iradicated.

"But ‘human nature’ does in fact vary from society to society. For instance, competitiveness, which is taken for granted in our society, hardly existed in many previous societies. When scien*tists first tried to give Sioux Indians IQ tests, they found that the Indians could not understand why they should not help each other do the answers. The society they lived in stressed cooperation, not competition.

The same with aggressiveness. When Eskimos first met Europeans, they could not make any sense whatsoever of the notion of ‘war’. The idea of one group of people trying to wipe out another group of people seemed crazy to them.

In our society it is regarded as ‘natural’ that parents should love and protect their children. Yet in the Ancient Greek city of Sparta it was regarded as ‘natural’ to leave infants out in the mountains to see if they could survive the cold."

Clarksist

26th July 2005, 01:46

When scien*tists first tried to give Sioux Indians IQ tests, they found that the Indians could not understand why they should not help each other do the answers. The society they lived in stressed cooperation, not competition.

You know, I heard a story about that and wasn't sure if that's true. For some reason it makes me laugh heartilly.

I agree that humans socially evolve, and do so quickly. I believe that revolution may even be enough to change over ideals.

However, there would still be SOME that would think its cool and totally rad to not work.

It's kinda like the people who go to the mall and take a crap in the fountain in front of everyone. Not many people do it, but some do. And they need some form of punishment to deter them.

Amusing Scrotum

26th July 2005, 01:47

Also as I understand it in a Communist society as I understand it the workers' themselves would decide upon punishment.

So for example the workers of town A could decide the lazy person loses their voting rights, the people of town B could decide the lazy person is left to starve and the workers of town C could decide the lazy person is stoned to death.

Democracy in action. ;)

Seeker

26th July 2005, 02:49

Don't forget about town D where nobody does shit anyway! Work is for solar-powered robots of singular AI ;)

26th July 2005, 05:14

However, there would still be SOME that would think its cool and totally rad to not work.

It's kinda like the people who go to the mall and take a crap in the fountain in front of everyone. Not many people do it, but some do. And they need some form of punishment to deter them.

Nobody will think its cool to be lazy, as they will be raised to not think that. When they are raised in a socialist and communist society they are raised to contribute to the community. This will be imprinted in their consciousness so deeply that it would be completely abnormal to not work. It would be inconceivable to not work.

And its a lot more extreme than crapping in the fountain in front of everybody. Think of how cannibalism in our society is thought of. Besides being horribly sick, it's just completely strange to be a cannibal in our society. However, whole societies have been based around cannibalism in which it was equally as strange to NOT be cannibal. This analogy is a lot more accurate than public fountain crappers.

enigma2517

26th July 2005, 06:10

Yeah ultimately its silly try and predict since many different solutions will employed all throughout the world.

Nobody ever said how communism will work and nobody ever will (hopefully all Leninists happen to get struck by lightning). Thats the beauty of it, billions of people all around the world putting their heads together and trying all sorts of different approaches. Since there is more profit incentive, or invisible hand, or any other thing like that keeping less than optimal methods in use then eventually the methods that produce the best results will be implemented else. Thats why a globalized communication network (available to all) and globalization in general is important, we want ideas to be able to travel quickly and freely.

So put away that crystal ball and get out there.

Educate. Agitate. Organize.

Clarksist

26th July 2005, 06:21

Nobody will think its cool to be lazy, as they will be raised to not think that. When they are raised in a socialist and communist society they are raised to contribute to the community. This will be imprinted in their consciousness so deeply that it would be completely abnormal to not work. It would be inconceivable to not work.

What? We are going to be brainwashing people now?

Even still, you can't deny that there would be people who wouldn't work.

That is just how some people would be. Sociopaths for example, as I've stated before.

And its a lot more extreme than crapping in the fountain in front of everybody. Think of how cannibalism in our society is thought of. Besides being horribly sick, it's just completely strange to be a cannibal in our society. However, whole societies have been based around cannibalism in which it was equally as strange to NOT be cannibal. This analogy is a lot more accurate than public fountain crappers.

Being a leach is a lot different than eating another person.

BTW, how could you possibly know that we'd feel that way towards non-workers?

Thats why a globalized communication network (available to all) and globalization in general is important, we want ideas to be able to travel quickly and freely.

Funny saying coming from a guy whose avatar is Noam Chomsky. ^_^

26th July 2005, 06:28

What? We are going to be brainwashing people now?

If by brainwashing people you mean changing society itself so much that people are raised this way then yes.

Even still, you can't deny that there would be people who wouldn't work.

Yes I can.

Being a leach is a lot different than eating another person.

The analogy was that the number of people that wouldn't work in a communist society would be about the same as the number of cannibals in our society.

BTW, how could you possibly know that we'd feel that way towards non-workers?

Because that is how society would be structured. That is how people would be raised to think.

Hiero

26th July 2005, 06:52

All I'm saying is that there is no way to prove that Communism is the human race's final organizing structure.

Yes there is. The only time society has reorganised itself is when technology advances and classes come into conflict, and one class triumphes over another class, then they reorganise the economy to keep their control.

When we reach communism there is no classes, so there is no reorganising society. So maybe you would like to enlighting us to your new theory of how soceity changes.

Clarksist

26th July 2005, 07:21

If by brainwashing people you mean changing society itself so much that people are raised this way then yes.

We can't "change" society without society changing itself. Society as a whole would have to make the decision.

Yes I can.

You could, I guess. It just seems completely in contrast with former posts where we argued over what to do with non-workers, where now you are saying none would. At least by denying that non-workers would exist in communism you would, which you have told us all that you can do.

The analogy was that the number of people that wouldn't work in a communist society would be about the same as the number of cannibals in our society.

No it wasn't, you said (and I quote):

"Think of how cannibalism in our society is thought of. Besides being horribly sick, it's just completely strange to be a cannibal in our society. However, whole societies have been based around cannibalism in which it was equally as strange to NOT be cannibal."

That statement, by you, implies that you meant how cannibals are thought of now, is how non-workers should be thought of under communism.

Yes there is. The only time society has reorganised itself is when technology advances and classes come into conflict, and one class triumphes over another class, then they reorganise the economy to keep their control.

You are absolutely right. That is the only time society has reorganized itself. But that doesn't mean that for sure thats the only way it ever will.

When we reach communism there is no classes, so there is no reorganising society. So maybe you would like to enlighting us to your new theory of how soceity changes.

Society also changes due to social systems being upheaveled. In the future, perhaps some of our prejudices will seem "barbaric."

Or maybe the opposite will happen.

Maybe religious cults will form and they will try to dominate over us mere infidels.

Who knows? All I'm saying is that there is no way to definitively say that after Communism its happily ever after.

Donnie

26th July 2005, 08:47

Probably the best one I've come up with (and coincidently the best one I've ever heard of) is to eliminate their voting rights. They could still live in the area, they just wouldn't have a say in what happens.
If you did that then you would just be as bad as the capitalists. Who gets to take away their rights in a communist society? Because last time I read everything is equally distributed, wealth and power etc.
I’m against rights in the sense that I don’t believe one person gets to say weather they get rights or not. I mean who actually got the right to think weather humans get human rights? It’s a sick joke.

I think we need to think why people are lazy? First of all it’s unlikely that people will be lazy. The reason why they won’t be lazy is because they will only have to work 3 hours a day to produce the necessities in a communist society in our present day system I have to work 8 hours a day the rest of the 5 hours I work is purely dedicated to the profitability of the bourgeois owner.
Alexander Berkman said the reason why people are lazy is because there not in the right job, this is definitely true for me and my class. I refuse to work more than 1 day a week because I hate the job. In a communist society I hope to do job that I love. Therefore I will gladly work everyday for a few hours to benefit society.

The Feral Underclass

26th July 2005, 14:42

I agree largely with what Lazar has said about laziness being looked down on. But what if a person comes to their weekly community meeting and asks to be exempt from work to concentrate on writing his book, finishing her sculpture or to organise a music festival?

I think that it is important to remember that we can allow exceptions to the rule and that our society should not solely be based on production and distribution but allowing individuals the opportunity to concentrate their energies on things they enjoy or care about.

Building a society based on mutual aid must take into consideration the desires of others while at the same time being humble enough to make sacrifices.

redstar2000

26th July 2005, 18:34

Originally posted by Clarksist
Pot can be grown in your backyard...

Yes it can...but it doesn't "grow itself". You must plant it, water it, weed it, etc.

And since it's probably very difficult to grow "just enough for yourself", you will probably have a surplus.

Which you can give to your neighbors.

And "all of a sudden", you're not a fuckoff any more...you're a small pot grower. You are performing socially useful labor.

As for electricity, yeah, it probably will go out if there is NO PUNISHMENT for being idle.

If that were really true, then there's really no point to the communist project at all. If people will only do productive labor under coercion (of some sort), we may as well stick to capitalism -- or at least some reformed and slightly more humane version.

Communism is about the abolition of compulsory labor (wage-slavery)...and if we then re-introduce compulsion, we've simply defeated ourselves.

We are constantly told by the overwhelming majority that we are useless, lazy, etc. and yet look at us still being communists.

But in other times, ruling classes have not hesitated to use "other means" to discourage people from being communists...including imprisonment, torture, rape, and murder.

Perhaps you've heard that old joke: "Mussolini killed and killed and killed the communists...until there were millions of them."

So many people would be held in social contempt merely out of the art style they choose... and these would be the "real artists" you speak of.

Complain not to me but to reality. Contrary to bourgeois mythology, art is not the product of "individual genius" but is a social product.

Stuff that nobody likes ain't art...it's junk.

That doesn't mean, of course, that the stuff people do like is necessarily "art" either -- a lot of that stuff is also junk.

But some of it is art...and will be appreciated as such "over the long haul".

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

26th July 2005, 21:07

Artists can work and do art. I think they can handle 5-hour workdays while they work.

Seeker

26th July 2005, 22:40

Anything with skillful effort invested in it is art, and it does not matter who finds it pleasing. I agree that it is largely a social phenomenon, because the artist is shaped by his environment.

Even if no one in the artist's own time enjoys his work, future generations will find it useful in understanding their ancestors. When you view a collection of art from a particular culture, you get a good idea of the issues effecting that culture's emotions, what they respected, what they feared, and in many cases the techniques used by the artists can tell us how well respected were math and science.

I think that if a person can prove their skill with a brush, chisel, or whatever, the community should seriously consider recommending that person to use most of their time to create. There should be an expectation that most of his or her work will be given away, to be displayed in City Hall or the neighbors' bathroom.

Mass produced "art" should be done away with during the eliminating-excess-work stage along with the bag boys, bus boys, chauffeurs, maids, telemarketers and so on. Just reprint the classics for educational purposes to pass along thousands of years of improvement and learning to the next generation of artists. Individual, hand-crafted pieces of decoration would then become something people wanted, meaning the artist would be a productive contributor to the community.

Clarksist

26th July 2005, 23:00

If you did that then you would just be as bad as the capitalists.

Only if by "bad" you mean "practical." If there is no punishment for a crime against society, that seems like a ridiculous situation.

Yes it can...but it doesn't "grow itself". You must plant it, water it, weed it, etc.

I dunno man, I've seen it grow in some pretty compromising situations. :lol:

If people will only do productive labor under coercion (of some sort), we may as well stick to capitalism -- or at least some reformed and slightly more humane version.

I think maybe you are missing my point. I don't mean that absolutely NO ONE will work. And I don't think that NO ONE will be effective by social exclusion if they don't work.

All I'm saying is that for a select few, that may not be enough. And in those cases if you aren't contributing society, you can't decide what said society does.

But in other times, ruling classes have not hesitated to use "other means" to discourage people from being communists...including imprisonment, torture, rape, and murder.

Umm... ok, but all we are doing to non-workers would be excluding their voting rights. Not imprisonment, torture, rape, or murder.

I feel that everyone is mistaking what I mean. I think that most people would work no problem. And I think that many people would work also because if they didn't work they'd be a fucking douchebag.

But for a select few, that wouldn't be enough. And society shouldn't be shaped by those unwilling to lend a hand to it.

OleMarxco

26th July 2005, 23:22

Well, let me guess. As I see how it stands,
on the issue of "lazy people" a.k.a. 'slackers',
We have three choiches:
Kick their ass. Negative....
Reward them. Positive....
Do nothing. Both.

All of these will have results on their mind ;)
If we make our own comrades suffer, we'll surely give the signal of a police-state who do not tolerate idleness, not unlike a feudal society.
Thus creatin' schizm. Who deserves leisure? Philosophy is a weapon we wield here.

If we reward them for their idleness, they will definately think society will let them drift because of it's postivive-ness attitude towards it, and that's it's good for "economy", meanwhile it's not

.Doing nothing....
Gives a neutral sign; It's no compulsion or repulsion towards or against. They will likely continue: Until they get bored. Or do work. Or doesn't. They will think society don't care, and that they don't get no help either from idlin', more than else. It's their own destiny......invidual over state. Commune over invidual? Nope. Invidual in communial.

The final answer of mine, is; "So what?" :P
Some of the answers here shock me; I have said things in the past too, screamin'
for the blood of the slackers. Trials. Stoning to Death. Inhumane! This revolution
is to free people of the strain havin' to do a damn shit for anything.. THE REVOLUTION IS FOR THE SLACKERS! HUZZAH! Our bonds to society shall be broken.
There is no need to uphold cosmic balance and luxury and a perfect machinery.
The capitalistic way of thinking must DIE with the reactionaries, as peaceful as possible.