Do we have an ethical duty?

[RedLion]

I have a question which has bugged me for some time now.

At any given time there is a finite amount of wealth in the world, I'm not just talking about monetary wealth, but also mineral wealth, food production wealth etc.

Now, it seems madness to me that 90% of that wealth is controlled by 5% or so of the populous. It makes no sense on any level.

I do believe we have a moral duty to spread the wealth as evenly as is practical.

My question is however.

Does this redistribution of wealth extend to those who are too lazy to help themselves or contribute to the running of a society? I am thinking in particular as an example close to home, the spongers who live off the state and have no intention of ever working.

[coda]

<<Does this redistribution of wealth extend to those who are too lazy to help themselves or contribute to the running of a society? I am thinking in particular as an example close to home, the spongers who live off the state and have no intention of ever working>>

yes.

Don&#39;t worry. We will find something for them to do --- It may not seem like "work" but it will be contributing to society nevertheless. Everyone has something they can do, YOu know.. "everyone according to their need, etc. "

[RedLion]

That&#39;s a fair point.

My concern comes from the belief that if we start making concessions in a new world order to those who simply "can&#39;t be bothered".....and there are many. Some citizens will become more equal than others and we could easily end up with a situation where there is still a distinct class structure.

Rather than &#39;haves&#39; and &#39;have nots&#39; it becomes &#39;those who do&#39; and &#39;those who dont&#39;

[coda]

<<it becomes &#39;those who do&#39; and &#39;those who dont&#39; >>

everyone will "do" according to their ability.

"From each according to their ability; to each according to their need" _ Karl marx

There will be a substantial portion of society who may not be able to "work". Children, sick and disabled, etc.

All of them also must be provided for. They will do what they are able to do to contribute and *participate* to society. Hopefully nobody will be keeping score by means of poundage. I think as long as someone is not a menace to society, counter revolutionary, then they will get the essentials -- food, shelter, clothing, etc.

[Tatarin]

The "lazyness" comes mainly from a capitalist society I would say. To not do anything doesn&#39;t mean that the person in question is an "intelligent vegetable".

I believe people will get active, since they will decide how their own society should look like. Today, we don&#39;t. Why should we do anything more than we get paid for?

[dannthraxxx]

I think what he means is, some people can do. They just dont do. They have no aspirations what so ever and they would just as soon sit in their bedrooms as they would help society. Some people for that matter, just do not like society, so why bother working to help society?

What do you do with the people who can do, but are too lazy to do? To me, giving them food, shelter, etc, isnt very fair nor right. Especially when they can go about doing those things on their own.

[peaccenicked]

There many &#39;oughts&#39;, there are many &#39;dont&#39;s. There are some people who are morally brave and some who are moral cowards, then there are also hypocrites.
Marx and Engels were both influenced by Hegel, who said "Freedom is the recognition of Necessity". In other words freedom is the fulfilment of one&#39;s obligations.

Life itself has taught me people tend to do only what they know, that means that if
ignorance has ruled a persons life they will find it hard to escape. Some may never.

The key word is &#39;recognition&#39; and requires for many an education different from what they know, we as revolutionaries are obliged to teach what we can to those who will listen and we are obliged to look at new approaches to those previously unapproachable, but saying that we are not responsible for the ignorance of others in that we should never feel guilty.
We also should note that there is much self-movement of the working class struggling with both the hegemony or dominance of capitalist ideas and the reality that the system is an enemy to their real interests.

[apathy maybe]

See also the thread, Free riding in an anarchist society (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=63344) which I started on a similar topic.

Anyway, it depends doesn&#39;t it.

Does this redistribution of wealth extend to those who are too lazy to help themselves or contribute to the running of a society? I am thinking in particular as an example close to home, the spongers who live off the state and have no intention of ever working.
Firstly, as has been pointed out, lazyness is dependent on society, in a capitalist society, the only incentive I have to work is to gain money. If I can get money by living "off the state", by sponging, then why not?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Speaking from a socialist standpoint, I don&#39;t see how they will be able to live off others when the State won&#39;t be redistributing money. The community will give the workers their fair chance, wage, and say, but that&#39;s different than the welfare state we have going on now where being rich and/or lazy is rewarded.

[The-Spark]

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


Some citizens will become more equal than others
Sorry, that statement really confuzed me, how can one be more equal?

That and the only incentive to work in a capitalist state is money. I think people would work, because what else would they do with their lives, they cant sponge off anybody, they have to do something or they&#39;ll most likely be harshly rediculed, in hope this embaressment would teach them to contribute.

[RedLion]

Originally posted by The&#045;Spark+August 04, 2007 05:58 am--> (The-Spark @ August 04, 2007 05:58 am)
[email protected] 02, 2007 10:10 pm


Some citizens will become more equal than others
Sorry, that statement really confuzed me, how can one be more equal?

That and the only incentive to work in a capitalist state is money. I think people would work, because what else would they do with their lives, they cant sponge off anybody, they have to do something or they&#39;ll most likely be harshly rediculed, in hope this embaressment would teach them to contribute. [/b]
That statement was attributed to the Soviet Union circa 1965 meaning that although tehnically and officially all citizens were equal, the reality was very different, the gap between rich and poor in cold war USSR was huge.

I have to disagree with your statement regading the work incentives in a capitalist society. I live in one, I hate it, but I live there. I do not work purely for money, I work to feed my family and give us human comforts, shelter, heat etc, I don&#39;t think that&#39;s unreasonable.

I earn far more money than I need, I give much to charity, which shouldn&#39;t be necessary but in the real world...

I work because it&#39;s the right thing to do, I also enjoy my work as a teacher. I work for satisfaction, self respect, mental stimulation. None of these things are against any socialist ideal.

[The-Spark]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 04:33 pm

That statement was attributed to the Soviet Union circa 1965 meaning that although tehnically and officially all citizens were equal, the reality was very different, the gap between rich and poor in cold war USSR was huge.

I have to disagree with your statement regading the work incentives in a capitalist society. I live in one, I hate it, but I live there. I do not work purely for money, I work to feed my family and give us human comforts, shelter, heat etc, I don&#39;t think that&#39;s unreasonable.

I earn far more money than I need, I give much to charity, which shouldn&#39;t be necessary but in the real world...

I work because it&#39;s the right thing to do, I also enjoy my work as a teacher. I work for satisfaction, self respect, mental stimulation. None of these things are against any socialist ideal.
I stand corrected :)

[praxicoide]

I have to disagree with your statement regading the work incentives in a capitalist society. I live in one, I hate it, but I live there. I do not work purely for money, I work to feed my family and give us human comforts, shelter, heat etc, I don&#39;t think that&#39;s unreasonable.

That&#39;s just it about capitalism, in order for us to reproduce ourselves physically, we are forced to sell our labor-force, alienating our productive capacity to receive money. So obtaining money is the incentive.

You and I are not interested in money per se, but in satisfying our necessities. Others might chase money as a reified substance.

The captitalist reduction to a homo oeconomicus shows that the former are lazy while the latter are the true contributive members of society.

As socialists we should be able to see beyond this reduction and not label people as lazy, since this is a judgment based on circumstance.

In a socialist society, lots of free time would become available, and people will be free of the market; their activities will no longer be labeled "productive" or not based on solely economic criteria.

On a personal note, as a teen I suffered greatly because I realized that I would soon be incorporated as a cog in a machinery and my illusions would be crushed. I guess that this happens a lot. Anyways, once you pass this stage, you could simply dismiss this suffering, identifying with the oppressive circumstances, and consider those who rebel against utilitarian criteria or other ratio as "lazy" or childish. It&#39;s a common psychological process.