Penalties for not working

[MrDoom]

One particular argument tossed at me many times is that Communism gives no incentive to work, and has no penalty to those who do not work. Now, I have no problem refuting the 'incentive to work' problem, but the other one I do have trouble with.

Thinking about this, I've come to the conclusion that those who do not work under communism would be stripped of voting rights by the community.

I'd like to ask if any Communists in history, or modern Communism in general, thought the same way, and if it has practical applications to a post-revolutionary society. It DOES follow the idea of 'you get out what you put in', and 'To each according to their needs, from each according to their means'. What I am not sure of myself is if this creates hierarchy or another class antagonism. Any thoughts?

[Comrade Marcel]

Great topic.

If you are talking about communist society, as in the completed stage of international revolution, the complete abolishment of private property, gift economy, etc. then I think that this problem would have been solved by the time we reached that stage.

If you are talking about socialist society, then it really depends on what stage of development things are at IMO. If, for example, there is still a market economy in existence, even if the means of production are completely state owned (and the state is under the power of the proletariat) then I think the same rules would apply as under any market economy: you need to pay for goods, and in order to get pay you need to sell (or trade) your labour.

Check out http://individual.utoronto.ca/mrodden/study/moremarx.htm (class 2: distribution of goods and services and class 16: market economy.)

Though I don't entirely agree with much of his theory and analysis, this guy does address this issue quite well (some of his writings are in class 2):

SOCIALISM: What it is, What it's not (http://www.angelfire.com/co2/socialism/)

[LSD]

Firstly, in a communist society, there is no "government" or "state" to "strip" citizens of any rights.

In order to effect what you're talking about it would require setting up a massive bureaucracy to handle the monitering and organization. After all, someone has to decide how much work is "enough" and someone else has to enforce whatever judgement is reached.

That's why I am opposed to any "reward" system in communism as it only serves to re-institutionalize work. There should simply be no body with the authority to give out "prizes" for specific tasks.

Communism is not about controlling wants, it's about fulfilling wants in a truly democratic and egalitarian manner. That means that someone's access to resources should not be dependent on what kind of work they do or even if they do work at all.

Obviously someone who slouches around all day and does nothing would not be particularly popular. But I highly doubt that that kind of person would be particularly common, either. I can tell you, I've had times in my life when I had nothing to do, but I still undertook projects. Imagine what I could have done if I'd had the resources of society at my dispossal!

Making leisure timn or "rations" dependent on labour takes us right back to capitalism, albeit a slightly more meritocratic one. But communism is not about "nicening up" capitalism, it's about abolishing the despotism of capital; and making work a "commodity" again, is a very dangerous precedent.

I communism is not entirely free then it will inevitable revert back to some form of class society. Unless production is entirely composed of free voluntary actors, the door is open for exploiation and manipulation.

Besides, as I've already pointed out, there's really no need for such "motivations". Society is already motivating enough and, again, there really wouldn't be anyone in a position to "hand out" the "rewards". Also the nature of communism is such that no one has any monopoly on resources. Anything that could concievably be offered as a "bonus", is something that any individual could go and get for themselves anyway.

Making production or supply decisions based on "earned status" distracts from rational distribution and undermines accurate need calculation. And even "intangible" "bonuses" like voting or decision making rights, would be so practically decentralized that it would require a complete reorganization to exclude the new "underclass" of "slouches".

Remember, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". There is no need to add a corollary to that maxim. It is perfectly sufficient on its own.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

It's some what unrealistic to not punish slackers in some way because if people realize that they can just not work how are we going to get or food and other nessaticies. Many people won't wok just for the sake of working. I think the Mr. Dooms solution is good but it's kind of a bad incentive. I think hard workers should be rewarded with days off while slackers be given more work days. People who continuously don't work will recieve demerits and after a certain number of demerits per month (5-10) people will get small amounts of jail time.

[MrDoom]

Obviously someone who slouches around all day and does nothing would not be particularly popular.
What's popularity have to do with it? The person in question likely wouldn't care.


But I highly doubt that that kind of person would be particularly common, either. I can tell you, I've had times in my life when I had nothing to do, but I still undertook projects. Imagine what I could have done if I'd had the resources of society at my dispossal!
But that's just YOU. One man isn't representative of the human race, even if some others are like him.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not outright disagreeing with you, I'm just questioning the basis of your argument. ;)

[LSD]

It's some what unrealistic to not punish slackers in some way because if people realize that they can just not work how are we going to get or food and other nessaticies.

Again, you're thinking in capitalistic terms.

People will not "discover" that they aren't "forced" to work, they'll have set it up that way!

There isn't going to be some "moment of revelation" or "realization", because the noncoercive nature of communism is fundamental to its formulation. Again, the despotism of capital must be abolished in full. It cannot be replaced with a bureaucratic or "meritocratic" wage-slavery.

If labour is not voluntary, then society is not communist; its some sort of communalistic democratic "socialism" which is definitely an improvement to modern capitalism, but is by no means the "best we can do".


Many people won't wok just for the sake of working.

No one's asking them to.

Farmers will farm because they like being outside, enjoy the experience, and know that food needs to be grown. Those with a specific culinary or diatetic interest will also particupate in the process as they have a personal motivation.

But nowhere along the line will anyone be "forced" or "compelled" to help, nor should there be any "punishments" for failing to.


What's popularity have to do with it?

It indicates a negative social consequence of not working that requires no external management.

It won't on its own "force" labour, but it will certainly disuade individuals from "doing nothing". especially as there will be so many things to do!

The nature of communism will be that the opportunities for "employment" will be virtually limitless. Be it out of interest, curiousity, or civic obliation, nearly everyone will find something to which they wish to dedicate their time.

And remember, in terms of social pressure not being a coercive enough motivator, again, we don't want labour to be "forced", we want it to be free.


But that's just YOU. One man isn't representative of the human race, even if some others are like him.

Obviously not, and I wasn't implying that my personal example is "proof" that communism will work. I was simply using it to demonstrate the intuitiveness of many communistic principles.

[Craig]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 06:54 PM
Remember, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". There is no need to add a corollary to that maxim. It is perfectly sufficient on its own.
"From each according to his ability" is a demand that the individual gives to the extent that they are capable. It is not a license to do whatever you want, whenever you want. If you consume society's resources, then you are obligated to contribute to society in some form. A parasite is still a parasite, whether he is a capitalist or a thief.

The laws of the universe do not obey the political ideologies of humanity. I've said it before, but earthquakes, droughts, tornadoes, and floods are not part of a capitalist conspiracy. The are real, and they happen, and they will destroy societies that are not capable of withstanding them. In times of starvation, I guarantee you that people will not look well upon a capable man who refuses to carry his weight, regardless of your high ideals. It would be a surprise if such an individual did not suffer an unfortunate "accident."

Communism, anarchism, and socialism ought not be excuses for laziness.

[LSD]

"From each according to his ability" is a demand that the individual gives to the extent that they are capable. It is not a license to do whatever you want, whenever you want.

Those two possiblities are not mutually exclusive.

Communism is not about replacing private bosses with "state" ones or making coersion slightly less painful; it's about eliminating wage-slavery and the despotism of capital entirely.

It's not merely the ownership of the means of production that needs to be revolutionized, its also the relationship between the worker and his work.

Communists have often been accused of "glorifying" the proletariat, but that is a manifestation of our class loyalty, not any societal one. We fully understand that a communist society will not represent "traditional working-class values". Rather it will be forumated allong fiercely rational and humanist lines.

That means that no matter how much "work" an individual choses to do, by the mere fact of their being a member of human society, they are deserving of fundamental rights.

Accordingly, any attempt to mortage their basic humanity as a "motivation" is simply unacceptable.


If you consume society's resources, then you are obligated to contribute to society in some form.

"Obligated"? "Obligated" by whom?

And who exactly will determine how much "contribution" is sufficient to "repay" ones "debt to society?

Similarly, who will judge each worker to make sure that they "pay" this "bill"; who will meat out the punishment if an individual is found to be "parasitic"; and who will hear "appeals" in "special" situations?

You see, once you start re-formalizing labour, you inevitably create some sort of managerial clique; and once productrive organization is hierarchical again, the reemergence of class society is practically inevitable.

Stateless and classless society must be both ideologically and functionaly anarchic. Merely paying homage to the ideas of communism is not sufficient.

I know that, from a modern capitalist perspective, the idea of an actually free society seems somewhat "unfair" or anti-meritocratic. But what you need to understand is that that's a good thing.

Capitalist "values" are artificial and they are intrinsically anti-humanist. Communists don't care about "playing by the rules", we aim to smash the old rules!


I've said it before, but earthquakes, droughts, tornadoes, and floods are not part of a capitalist conspiracy.

:lol:

I can't speak to what you've "said before", but has anyone ever honestly argued otherwise?

Of course natural disasters are "real". The question, however, is are they a serious enough danger to require communism to abandon fundamental principles.

Clearly the answer is no!


In times of starvation, I guarantee you that people will not look well upon a capable man who refuses to carry his weight

Well, first of all, "times of starvation" are incredibly rare, especially for an industrialized first world country.

One of the chief reasons for the popularity of technlogy is that aside from luxuries it affords a population relative stablity. Socities that have mastered their environment are no longer subject to the arbitrary dictates of nature and so are not forced to run their civilization on a "day by day" basis.

And if modern capitalism is capable of weathering the occasional natural disasters, communism certainly is. Bad weather or "acts of God" are not going to "devastate" or "eliminate" crops, nor will heavy winds knock our buildings down.

We're not planning a "disaster society" here, we're planning a communist one!

And in terms of how "people will look upon" so-called "parasites", that's precisely what I was talking about when I spoke earlier of "popularity".

People probably won't be happy with someone who contributes absolutely nothing. But that one person is not a "threat" nor a "danger" to society, nor does his consumation of resources constitute a significant drain on puplic availables.

One person, two people, modern society is bigger than the lone "parasite" and can easily survive their dalliances.

The real point is that most people will freely contribute to society and functionaly speaking that's enough.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by LeftHenry+--> (LeftHenry)I think hard workers should be rewarded with days off while slackers be given more work days.[/b]
Yes, this sounds very simple and good...on paper.

In reality, to do such a thing requires some authoritative body. Perhaps if you're into 'socialism', such a thing as you're talking about would be feasible. However, such 'rewards' in communism are out of the question.


Craig
If you consume society's resources, then you are obligated to contribute to society in some form.
Perhaps. This is a good principle, and it will certainly be encouraged in communist society.

However, to do such a thing in practice demands hierarchy or authority of some kind over the worker in question.

And I don't think we can say "we'll let the people democratically decide". Democracy is a good system, but it should not be used merely to bully a person into conforming.


Also, I think LSD struck upon a good point there that some of you are missing.

In communist society, the methods of production will greatly improve. Technology will be a huge part of communist society, and we all know that the more technology and machinery we have, the less human labor is actually needed to increase production. So production may be, speaking in practical terms, 'infinite'.

If you don't like mathematical theoretical ideas, let's just say that we'll be able to produce a whole lot more with less labor-power.

So the 'parasite' or two really won't matter at all.

[Global_Justice]

well i think the worst thing you could do is let them starve to death, that idea didn't work too well.

[Jesus Christ!]

This topic has greatly decreased my belief in full communism being a feasible thing. If we are seriously going to say that anyone can take as much out of society without giving back, who will be there to put into society? Maybe a small mainority of people will start to realise that the system is falling apart and someone needs to do some labor to get things going but the majority I feel would not. Yes I do believe human nature is good but having a revolution and then telling people in the society that wer enot part of it, " hey guess what guys! you don't have to work anymore if you don't want to and you are still allowd to take as much out of society as you!" people would never go back to work. This unbrideled idealism scares me about the future of our cause.

[LSD]

If we are seriously going to say that anyone can take as much out of society without giving back, who will be there to put into society?

Anyone who wants to.

Again, like many other new posters here, you are approaching this question from a perspective of bourgeois values. You see work as something that must be "forced" and the worker as one who must be "compelled".

Neither of these are "universal", however, they are merely natural consequences of a society organized based on the despotism of capital.

In a free and egalitarian society, however, people will be able to produce wholly voluntarily, and as such will be able to pursue their own interests. In doing so, however, they will provide for society.

Look back through this thread or through the Who would work the factories? (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=48269) thread. Your concerns have already been addressed.


Yes I do believe human nature is good

Human nature is neither "good" nor "bad", rather its nonexistant.

People behave the way they do due to social conditions and material circumstances. The idea of some sort of inherent normative "nature" is entirely idealist.


having a revolution and then telling people in the society that wer enot part of it, " hey guess what guys! you don't have to work anymore if you don't want to and you are still allowd to take as much out of society as you!"

Clearly you are deeply misunderstanding the nature of revolution. Society cannot "not be a part" of social revolution, but is very nature it nescessitates popular participation.

Accordingly, no one's going to "tell" anyone anything, rather the people will set up the kind of society that they see best suiting their needs. If that's to be a communist one, its because they want it. Not because some elite "vanguard" has "lead" them to "socialism". "Directed" revolutions are not longer a serious option.

A true proletarian insurrection today must be undertaken by the whole proletariat. Obviously not every single worker will chose the right side; but for a first world revolution to be even moderately serious, it must include the vast majority of the working class.

That means that once its done, the people will be well aware of what they've been fighting for!

[anomaly]

Jesus Christ!, redstar2000 wrote a paper a few years ago that you may find interesting. It addresses the concerns you have.

Who will clean the sewers? (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083202823&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

[Ol' Dirty]

In a communist society, no one would force others to work, and there wouldn't be a need. In a best case scenario, there would only be a few slackers who would not work out of sheer laziness. In this case, a voting session would be held on the topic of revoking the person's privilage to use the comune's recources, or even exiling the person. In aa worst case scenario, if the entire population of the commune wil not work, they'll either start working againg from fear of death, or die off.

[Craig]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 08:00 PM
Again, like many other new posters here, you are approaching this question from a perspective of bourgeois values. You see work as something that must be "forced" and the worker as one who must be "compelled".
Let me first say that I have nothing but respect for you and I mean no offense, but it's sort of arrogant to equate a person that is new to this site with a person that is ignorant of the various flavors of leftist ideology (although I concede that sometimes it might be correct).

[LSD]

Perhaps, but in this case I think that both are probably true.

In any case, my description of his approach was unrelated to his membership status. It's not because he's "new" that he's adopted bourgeois values, but rather because he's immersed in a capitalist environment. And such views do tend to be typical of new members.

It may be "arrogant" to generalize, but its also unfortunately a nescessary part of being human.

[red team]

I highly doubt a society in which there is no compulsion to work is possible unless we achieve a level of technology far beyond what we have today. Although less people or less time are necessary for work to produce what people want to use and consume, this does not mean people can be lazy or lacking in dedication when performing work. Nobody wants bad service or shoddy goods. That said, I think a minimal amount of shelter, food, recreation and healthcare can be provided for those who are lazy slackers, but would not endanger the economic and industrial stability of the society.

But the problem is what would cause people to be undisciplined, lazy slackers in the first place? The self-discipline necessary for respecting the duty of work is not inherent in people. Self-discipline have to be instilled from childhood education through discipline. The problem of laziness and poor work habits comes entirely from a weak will.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by red team
Self-discipline have to be instilled from childhood education through discipline. The problem of laziness and poor work habits comes entirely from a weak will.
Marxism is a fundamentally materialist ideology, so to say that 'laziness' and 'poor work habits' comes from such an idealistic thing as a 'weak will' seems a bit off the mark.

And self-discipline is discipline from one's own self. As such, it can only be instilled by one's self. You can instill 'self discipline' upon someone else.

[red team]

Alright then. How do you account for so many people being religious godsuckers? Relying on reason, that is thinking things through, takes discipline. But, self-discipline is self denial. You have to deny yourself the comfort of intellectual laziness and actually use the brain your born with to reason things out. The reason why there are so many dumb jackasses in the world is because some people are so lazy as to not even bother having all that "work" in using their brains.