People who choose not to work?

[Marko]

For example, in this unjust capitalist society I have made a personal choice to avoid work and live with government benefits. I am very poor although well off compared to people in the Third World. But because I have much more free time than employed people I am happy.

So what if people make the same choice in the socialist state? Marx and Engels said that people are entitled to the the full product of their labor but what about people who do not produce anything of value?

What is the difference between people who choose to avoid work and those who are unable to work? And does Marxism discriminate against the sick, elderly, disabled and other such people because productive workers are entitled to larger amounts of money/goods?

[RevSouth]

My personal opinion is that a person who is able to do work, but does not, should not enjoy the benefits of a leftist society. Now as to how this would be implemented I am not so concrete. But it would definitely mean less enjoyment of capital produced, if any at all.

People unable to work would be provided for, their needs would be picked up by those who could. The assumption would also be that before they were sick/elderly/unable to work, that they had been a productive member of society, and are thusly entitled to their share of the wealth produced.

[Marko]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 06:01 am
My personal opinion is that a person who is able to do work, but does not, should not enjoy the benefits of a leftist society. Now as to how this would be implemented I am not so concrete. But it would definitely mean less enjoyment of capital produced, if any at all.

People unable to work would be provided for, their needs would be picked up by those who could. The assumption would also be that before they were sick/elderly/unable to work, that they had been a productive member of society, and are thusly entitled to their share of the wealth produced.
That would be a terrible idea, RedSouth. A person who is unable to work is entitled to a sufficient standard of living regardless of whether he has previously contributed productively to the society. Why should a person who was born as blind receive less benefits than a workman who has been blinded in an accident? That would be just discrimination.

Even in a socialist country many people would refuse to do hard work which is of (relatively) small economic value like cleaning. The experience has showed that human nature does not change so dramatically. I think it is also wrong to discriminate against people who reject work. That kind of rejection only shows that the society has not developed technologically far enough and attempts to force people to dehumanizating positions.

[Labor Shall Rule]

It doesn't sound ridiculous to raise unemployment benefits that is adjusted to the cost of living and inflation for individuals who are without work, but if you refuse to be an active participant in the functioning of the social order as a whole, I am guessing that you would receive similiar treatment that you have now.

Those who are sick, elderly, and disabled will receive different treatment; considering that they were either formerly citizens that contributed greatly, or were unable to contribute at all, I would assume that they would receive a package of benefits that would be tied to their cost of living, but also to their disability. Considering that medical treatment would be attainable from pre-birth to death, it would cut the costs that millions of the elderly and handicapped are met with today.

[Marko]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 06:44 am
It doesn't sound ridiculous to raise unemployment benefits that is adjusted to the cost of living and inflation for individuals who are without work, but if you refuse to be an active participant in the functioning of the social order as a whole, I am guessing that you would receive similiar treatment that you have now.
But currently I receive the same treatment as those people who really cannot find work. The system does not make a meaningful distinction between people like me and people who are unemployed without their own choice.

[RHIZOMES]

Originally posted by Marko+July 30, 2007 07:10 am--> (Marko @ July 30, 2007 07:10 am)
[email protected] 30, 2007 06:44 am
It doesn't sound ridiculous to raise unemployment benefits that is adjusted to the cost of living and inflation for individuals who are without work, but if you refuse to be an active participant in the functioning of the social order as a whole, I am guessing that you would receive similiar treatment that you have now.
But currently I receive the same treatment as those people who really cannot find work. The system does not make a meaningful distinction between people like me and people who are unemployed without their own choice. [/b]
I fail to see how all because the capitalist welfare state is providing for you means that the communist state would. With capitalism, unemployment is a nasty side effect so the welfare state was created to weakly combat this problem. With communism, if you don't work when you can work, it should not be encouraged by the communist system giving you resources you didn't work for, it'd give no one an incentive to work and pretty much the entire society would collapse. Who would work when you're all given the same amount no matter of you work or not?

[Marko]

Originally posted by mcteethinator+July 30, 2007 10:36 am--> (mcteethinator @ July 30, 2007 10:36 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 07:10 am

[email protected] 30, 2007 06:44 am
It doesn't sound ridiculous to raise unemployment benefits that is adjusted to the cost of living and inflation for individuals who are without work, but if you refuse to be an active participant in the functioning of the social order as a whole, I am guessing that you would receive similiar treatment that you have now.
But currently I receive the same treatment as those people who really cannot find work. The system does not make a meaningful distinction between people like me and people who are unemployed without their own choice.
I fail to see how all because the capitalist welfare state is providing for you means that the communist state would. With capitalism, unemployment is a nasty side effect so the welfare state was created to weakly combat this problem. With communism, if you don't work when you can work, it should not be encouraged by the communist system giving you resources you didn't work for, it'd give no one an incentive to work and pretty much the entire society would collapse. Who would work when you're all given the same amount no matter of you work or not? [/b]
But there are many good jobs available in Communist societies, too. In such jobs the value of your labor is so large that you have a nice salary. The people with proper skills would choose them over unemployment.

Also, even in minimum-income jobs you would still earn more than if you were unemployed. This is usually the case in capitalist societies too.

However, in my case I wouldn't earn enough money to compensate for the lost free time and effort if I went to work.

[RHIZOMES]

Originally posted by Marko+July 30, 2007 10:58 am--> (Marko @ July 30, 2007 10:58 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 10:36 am

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 07:10 am

[email protected] 30, 2007 06:44 am
It doesn't sound ridiculous to raise unemployment benefits that is adjusted to the cost of living and inflation for individuals who are without work, but if you refuse to be an active participant in the functioning of the social order as a whole, I am guessing that you would receive similiar treatment that you have now.
But currently I receive the same treatment as those people who really cannot find work. The system does not make a meaningful distinction between people like me and people who are unemployed without their own choice.
I fail to see how all because the capitalist welfare state is providing for you means that the communist state would. With capitalism, unemployment is a nasty side effect so the welfare state was created to weakly combat this problem. With communism, if you don't work when you can work, it should not be encouraged by the communist system giving you resources you didn't work for, it'd give no one an incentive to work and pretty much the entire society would collapse. Who would work when you're all given the same amount no matter of you work or not?
But there are many good jobs available in Communist societies, too. In such jobs the value of your labor is so large that you have a nice salary. The people with proper skills would choose them over unemployment.

Also, even in minimum-income jobs you would still earn more than if you were unemployed. This is usually the case in capitalist societies too.

However, in my case I wouldn't earn enough money to compensate for the lost free time and effort if I went to work. [/b]
Eventually, everyone is given the same amount of resources for their work. that's the basis of communism. If you chose not to work, there's really no point in giving you resources since you didn't earn them and it defeats point of communism as one of Karl Marx's main annoyances with capitalism was that workers made all the resources and weren't given much for their labour. he wasn't annoyed that lazy people aren't getting a free ride.

[Marko]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 11:10 am
[QUOTE=mcteethinator,July 30, 2007 10:36 am]
Eventually, everyone is given the same amount of resources for their work. that's the basis of communism. If you chose not to work, there's really no point in giving you resources since you didn't earn them and it defeats point of communism as one of Karl Marx's main annoyances with capitalism was that workers made all the resources and weren't given much for their labour. he wasn't annoyed that lazy people aren't getting a free ride.
I was speaking of a Socialist society in my previous post. In a Communist society there is an abundance of material goods and nobody needs to have a regular job.

[MarxSchmarx]

So what if people make the same choice in the socialist state? Marx and Engels said that people are entitled to the the full product of their labor but what about people who do not produce anything of value?

Just tell me what it is the left believes in if not "From each, according to his ability, to each, according to his need"??

[Marko]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 01:00 am
[QUOTE]
Just tell me what it is the left believes in if not "From each, according to his ability, to each, according to his need"??
That characterizes a Communist society in a higher phase. According to the labor theory of value workers should be paid according to the value of their labor during the period of socialism which leads to income equalities (though the needs of everybody will be satisfied) in Socialism.

[MarxSchmarx]

That characterizes a Communist society in a higher phase. According to the labor theory of value workers should be paid according to the value of their labor during the period of socialism which leads to income equalities (though the needs of everybody will be satisfied) in Socialism.

You need to be precise about whether we are valuing the labor people put into producing something or a service, versus the value that society puts on the output of the labor. If the output is valued according to supply and demand of the product, then the labor theory of value no longer holds.

So even under "Socialism" we need to measure what we might consider "the labor people put into producing something. It seems to me time and effort a person expends on producing something is as reasonable a measure of the labor value of something. Paying people based on how much effort or time they put in also seems basically fair for reasons elaborated elsewhere.

Therefore, even under "Socialism," if it is to value labor per se rather than its output, should ideally NOT subsidize the genuinely lazy that refuse to work. I'm referring more to the Malibu surfer dude than the single mothers out there. It's not clear to my why crappy jobs that need to get done can't be shared or highly paid "under Socialism" by virtue of the extra-effort needed to do them.

[RHIZOMES]

You claim to be a Marxist-Leninist, yet Lenin said "He who does not work neither shall he eat". Hm.

[Marko]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 09:04 am
You claim to be a Marxist-Leninist, yet Lenin said "He who does not work neither shall he eat". Hm.
Bullshit. Explain me why refusing to work in a capitalist society is in any way anti-Marxist. In fact, that is the absolute right of every worker.

It would be my duty to work in a socialist society.

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

Starving someone into working is how the capitalists ensure that people will stay employed. On the other hand though, living off of the labour of others is how the capitalists profit.

So the idea is that, firstly, we can expect more people working in a society where they can actually control the aspects of their work and do things that satisfy and fulfill themselves as well as others. So there might be opportunities for self-employment for those who want to be "left alone" as some desire.

Aside from physical or mental illness, age, or other factors that people do not choose, anyone who did not work by choice (these people would likely be small in number) ought to be given the basics of life, food, shelter, clothing, heat, light, etc to try to negate both of the two points I mentioned at the start as much as is possible.

[RHIZOMES]

Originally posted by Marko+August 01, 2007 07:24 am--> (Marko @ August 01, 2007 07:24 am)
[email protected] 01, 2007 09:04 am
You claim to be a Marxist-Leninist, yet Lenin said "He who does not work neither shall he eat". Hm.
Bullshit. Explain me why refusing to work in a capitalist society is in any way anti-Marxist. In fact, that is the absolute right of every worker.

It would be my duty to work in a socialist society. [/b]
Therefore taking money that the capitalists begrudgingly gave for welfare from someone who is actually in need.

[Marko]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 11:30 am
Therefore taking money that the capitalists begrudgingly gave for welfare from someone who is actually in need.
Spare me from your Muslim moralism. You have no understanding how capitalism works. Hoxha was right about you religious idiots.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Marko+August 01, 2007 11:25 am--> (Marko @ August 01, 2007 11:25 am)
[email protected] 01, 2007 11:30 am
Therefore taking money that the capitalists begrudgingly gave for welfare from someone who is actually in need.
Spare me from your Muslim moralism. You have no understanding how capitalism works. Hoxha was right about you religious idiots. [/b]
Hey you asshole, this is a leftwing board such a discriminatory attitude is utterly unwelcome.

[RHIZOMES]

Originally posted by Marko+August 01, 2007 10:25 am--> (Marko @ August 01, 2007 10:25 am)
[email protected] 01, 2007 11:30 am
Therefore taking money that the capitalists begrudgingly gave for welfare from someone who is actually in need.
Spare me from your Muslim moralism. You have no understanding how capitalism works. Hoxha was right about you religious idiots. [/b]
Wow, more claims that you haven't backed up with any evidence!

Please tell me why me stating that makes me not know how capitalism works.

And Hoxha was a tyrant who pretty much grinded all development in Albania to a halt. That country hardly even had telephones. I fail to see how a megalomaniacal dictator of a deformed workers' state not liking people like me is supposed to be a good argument.

[Marko]

Originally posted by Invader Zim+August 02, 2007 01:33 pm--> (Invader Zim @ August 02, 2007 01:33 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 11:25 am

[email protected] 01, 2007 11:30 am
Therefore taking money that the capitalists begrudgingly gave for welfare from someone who is actually in need.
Spare me from your Muslim moralism. You have no understanding how capitalism works. Hoxha was right about you religious idiots.
Hey you asshole, this is a leftwing board such a discriminatory attitude is utterly unwelcome. [/b]
He was the one who called me a "welfare leech".<_<

No true socialist would use that kind of epithet. Teethinator is just a stupid reactionary/third worldist.

[Dr Mindbender]

To me it really boils down to what you define as &#39;work&#39;.

I believe there exists machismo chauvinism that unless you&#39;re busting your guts in a baking hot factory then it doesnt qualify as labour.
What about artists, actors, and even sportspeople (the latter albeit over rewarded under capitalism) who still contribute creativism yet they dont necessarilly fall into the stereotype of the &#39;worker&#39;?
I think as long as youre making a positive contribution, you should still recieve the benefits of socialism/communism. The only ones who dont are the private businesspeople and their political cronies in office.

[Marko]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 02:06 pm
Please tell me why me stating that makes me not know how capitalism works.
Because the function of welfare benefits in capitalist systems is to bribe workers to abandon revolutionary aspirations.

They are not a fixed amount of money the capitalists give to workers out of charity.

No worker loses anything because of my actions and as I refuse to work in jobs which are socially useless or even positively harmful I help to bring the inevitable liquidity crisis of capitalist countries closer thereby helping the proletariat.

[Invader Zim]

He was the one who called me a "welfare leech"

And you are the one who espouced employed an ignorant and bigoted retort. You are no different to the scum here (http://www.***************/forum/), and I am going to do my upmost to see you banned or restricted to OI (where you belong) at the very least.

[Marko]

Originally posted by Invader [email protected] 02, 2007 05:53 pm

He was the one who called me a "welfare leech"

And you are the one who espouced employed an ignorant and bigoted retort. You are no different to the scum here (http://www.***************/forum/), and I am going to do my upmost to see you banned or restricted to OI (where you belong) at the very least.
But don&#39;t you and Scumfronters have the same opinion of Zionism? Don&#39;t you find it troubling?

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Marko+August 02, 2007 05:24 pm--> (Marko &#064; August 02, 2007 05:24 pm)
Invader [email protected] 02, 2007 05:53 pm

He was the one who called me a "welfare leech"

And you are the one who espouced employed an ignorant and bigoted retort. You are no different to the scum here (http://www.***************/forum/), and I am going to do my upmost to see you banned or restricted to OI (where you belong) at the very least.
But don&#39;t you and Scumfronters have the same opinion of Zionism? Don&#39;t you find it troubling? [/b]
Don&#39;t try and discuss subjects of which you are clearly ignorant. Many anti-semites are pro-zionism&#33; You realise that the nazis them selves encouraged it before the Madagascar plan and subsequently the holocaust came into the picture? The Nazi objective, as with many other white nationalists, was and is for a &#39;Jew free&#39; state. If Zionism resulted in Jews leaving they were and are all for it&#33;

[syndicat]

mctee:
With communism, if you don&#39;t work when you can work, it should not be encouraged by the communist system giving you resources you didn&#39;t work for, it&#39;d give no one an incentive to work and pretty much the entire society would collapse. Who would work when you&#39;re all given the same amount no matter of you work or not?

This seems right to me. But it also shows what is not correct about the communist principle: "From each according to work, to each according to need." The problem is that "to each according to need" does not say that people who are able-bodied have to earn their entitlement to consume. It says the society just gives people whatever they "need" (and how do we determine what that is?) irrespective of what they&#39;d done to produce the social product. I realize that the "From each according to ability" part suggests there is an obligation to work for those who are able-bodied. But the principle itself is confusing because it doesn&#39;t link that obligation with what people receive.

and the idea that goods will be so abundant in communism we don&#39;t have to worry about whether people work is a bit mystical: where are those goods going to come from? they will require work.

a clearer (but more complicated&#33;) formulation would be: To each according to the personal sacifices/effort they put forward in helping to produce the things people want if they are of working age and able-bodied, plus the shared benefits we provide to everyone without requiring evidence of work effort (free education, health care etc), and if we don&#39;t provide work for people or people are disabled or too young or too old to work, the society provides their personal consumption at the typical level for this society without requiring work from them.

[CornetJoyce]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 08:25 pm


a clearer (but more complicated&#33;) formulation would be: To each according to the personal sacifices/effort they put forward in helping to produce the things people want if they are of working age and able-bodied, plus the shared benefits we provide to everyone without requiring evidence of work effort (free education, health care etc), and if we don&#39;t provide work for people or people are disabled or too young or too old to work, the society provides their personal consumption at the typical level for this society without requiring work from them.
In any event, the workers must constantly judge one another. We must know who is not pulling their weight. Naturally, some workers will specialize in "evidence" of laziness and in prosecution and punishment . From this proceeds a principle of authority.

[Pawn Power]

Originally posted by mcteethinator+August 01, 2007 04:30 am--> (mcteethinator @ August 01, 2007 04:30 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 07:24 am

[email protected] 01, 2007 09:04 am
You claim to be a Marxist-Leninist, yet Lenin said "He who does not work neither shall he eat". Hm.
Bullshit. Explain me why refusing to work in a capitalist society is in any way anti-Marxist. In fact, that is the absolute right of every worker.

It would be my duty to work in a socialist society.
Therefore taking money that the capitalists begrudgingly gave for welfare from someone who is actually in need. [/b]
As if money procured from philanthropy is ever distributed in a just way...or at all&#33;

[syndicat]

In any event, the workers must constantly judge one another. We must know who is not pulling their weight. Naturally, some workers will specialize in "evidence" of laziness and in prosecution and punishment . From this proceeds a principle of authority.

yes, but the phrase "principle of authority" is ambiguous. it could mean collective authority such as of the direct democracy of an assembly that makes decisions for a workplace or neighborhood or housing complex, or it could mean a structure of hierarchical authority, such as concentration of decision-making authority in corporate and state hierarchies. the latter form of authority presupposes a class division in society, if it is institutionalized.

[CornetJoyce]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 10:11 pm

In any event, the workers must constantly judge one another. We must know who is not pulling their weight. Naturally, some workers will specialize in "evidence" of laziness and in prosecution and punishment . From this proceeds a principle of authority.

yes, but the phrase "principle of authority" is ambiguous. it could mean collective authority such as of the direct democracy of an assembly that makes decisions for a workplace or neighborhood or housing complex, or it could mean a structure of hierarchical authority, such as concentration of decision-making authority in corporate and state hierarchies. the latter form of authority presupposes a class division in society, if it is institutionalized.

No, it does not mean a class society but only the working out of human dynamics familiar to every playground. By "principle of authority" I refer to the role of those who denounce their neighbors, the role of envy, anger, pettiness and busybodyism. (Russian peasants referred to the bolsheviks as "consecrated busybodies."), of the "puritanism" Mencken defined as "the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy."

In the beginning the role of accusor would be informal, as with Madame Defarge; eventually it would be institutionalized, as with St, Just. After all, those denied food, shelter and medicine would steal so a criminal class is created. If Democratic assemblies are to punish for lazyness, what would they do about theft by those condemned of lazyness? Can prisons and the gallows be far behind? And is not class society then reborn? And all just to prevent a few layabouts from getting a share of pizza.

Now, we know that in the New Age all these human frailties are supposed to disappear, but wouldn&#39;t it be safer to assume that they wouldn&#39;t? The Hutterites have been sharing communally for a long time and their procedure is: (1) The culprit gets a lecture. (2) Maybe the culprit gets a few more lectures (3) The culprit gets the silent treatment from the community (4) If, after a certain length of time, the culprit doesn&#39;t respond, s/he is judged to be "different" and s/he continues to share in the communal goods.

I know. Too "liberal." (Fill in your favorite "tough revolutionary" buzzwords here.)

[syndicat]

i don&#39;t understand your point. if, according to your interpretation, the "principle of authority" doesn&#39;t refer to structures that institutionalize class oppression, why should anyone be opposed to "the principle of authority"? it if it&#39;s not the basis of class oppression, what&#39;s wrong with it?

if someone murders or rapes others, or is a bully who takes the personal possessions of others, why think that the "silent treatment" will make them stop? if the community has rules for expected behavior, it will need to be able to enforce those rules. and many such rules would be to protect people from injury, abuse, or domination by others.

[peaccenicked]

Let us face it work under our present barbaric system is slavery, and unemployment is an intrinsic part of class oppression. If there is an individual route of this slavery one would take it as long as it was not criminal against those one has left behind.

I presently am on the sick and I think I ll be very lucky if I get a start anywhere, but thats besides the point.

Revolution as such will transform the nature of work, but more so the nature of work will transform the revolution. Marx envisaged robots making robots. Leaving man freer to engage in the higher expressions of human creativity.

The basic idea is that early in the revolutionary period(the transition or early stage)
we will aim to provide humanity with all of its basic needs and build on international security, trust and productivity to a point were actual human freedom develops and humanity is no longer burdened by the conditions that lead to isolation and alienation. We become fully socialised and self determined or at the very least a healthy balance is achieved. In which work will be a natural part of everyday consciousness.

I daresay it is hard to look at humanity&#39;s potential when we look at the actual conditions of modern work life.
But as the words of the song say,
"I dont know how to change things but by christ we have got to try"

[CornetJoyce]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 12:21 am
i don&#39;t understand your point. if, according to your interpretation, the "principle of authority" doesn&#39;t refer to structures that institutionalize class oppression, why should anyone be opposed to "the principle of authority"? it if it&#39;s not the basis of class oppression, what&#39;s wrong with it?

if someone murders or rapes others, or is a bully who takes the personal possessions of others, why think that the "silent treatment" will make them stop? if the community has rules for expected behavior, it will need to be able to enforce those rules. and many such rules would be to protect people from injury, abuse, or domination by others.
Please, no drama. The subject is not "murder and rape, abuse and domination," illegal smiles and counterrevolution, or even theft, but mere laziness and perhaps mental disorder unauthorized by the authorities.

But I was just asking as the archetypal man on the street to ascertain how important it is to have this utopia. &#39;nuff said.

[RevSouth]

Originally posted by Marko+July 30, 2007 01:31 am--> (Marko @ July 30, 2007 01:31 am)
[email protected] 30, 2007 06:01 am
My personal opinion is that a person who is able to do work, but does not, should not enjoy the benefits of a leftist society. Now as to how this would be implemented I am not so concrete. But it would definitely mean less enjoyment of capital produced, if any at all.

People unable to work would be provided for, their needs would be picked up by those who could. The assumption would also be that before they were sick/elderly/unable to work, that they had been a productive member of society, and are thusly entitled to their share of the wealth produced.
That would be a terrible idea, RedSouth. A person who is unable to work is entitled to a sufficient standard of living regardless of whether he has previously contributed productively to the society. Why should a person who was born as blind receive less benefits than a workman who has been blinded in an accident? That would be just discrimination.

Even in a socialist country many people would refuse to do hard work which is of (relatively) small economic value like cleaning. The experience has showed that human nature does not change so dramatically. I think it is also wrong to discriminate against people who reject work. That kind of rejection only shows that the society has not developed technologically far enough and attempts to force people to dehumanizating positions. [/b]
You can&#39;t post here anymore, Marko, but I think I will point out that it doesn&#39;t seem that you read my post. Anyone who is unable to work would be provided for, blind, deaf, dumb, whatever, something I made clear in my post.

I stand by my position on those who don&#39;t work as well. Don&#39;t work, don&#39;t eat. I look forward to a Socialist society, not a welfare society. Asshole.