Those who don't work

[Harrycombs]

This isn't about will people work under a communist/socialist government, but about those who absolutely refuse to. Alexander Berkman (an Anarchist for those who don't know) suggested that we ignore them, and that they would be a minority, and trying to force them to work will cause more problems.

Under a socialist government, perhaps the government could cut off all of their rights to obtain any goods, including food, if they don't get a job of some type. I think the government should always offer common jobs to people that have lost their jobs/quit to find something else, these things would be like garbage men and such because they would be simple to perform for the uneducated, they could be payed the same, or close to the same, as everyone else because its still vital work and would also have time to study and find a new job they would enjoy. Also, this could be forced upon people who would not work (or let them starve if they choose), so they surely wouldn't enjoy it, therefor giving an incentive to do more enjoyable work.

What do you think should be done?

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ "He who does not work, neither shall he eat!"

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his work!"

[Labour-time-based meritocracy isn't harsh to those who work, but there are limits before harshness has to creep in for sloths. This is ESPECIALLY what's needed for huge segments of the reactionary lumpenproletariat and its regressive culture.]

[TC]

Everyone who consumes anything should either be working, training to work, or taking a temporary break between work and/or training, or otherwise contributing to society in some way (even if its not productive labour, such as with artists, academics etc according to how many can be sustained and provided they receive *less* than productive workers).

[bcbm]

Under a socialist government, perhaps the government could cut off all of their rights to obtain any goods, including food, if they don't get a job of some type. I think the government should always offer common jobs to people that have lost their jobs/quit to find something else, these things would be like garbage men and such because they would be simple to perform for the uneducated, they could be payed the same, or close to the same, as everyone else because its still vital work and would also have time to study and find a new job they would enjoy. Also, this could be forced upon people who would not work (or let them starve if they choose), so they surely wouldn't enjoy it, therefor giving an incentive to do more enjoyable work.

Get a job or die, and if you're uneducated or lose your job, you can do all the shit work nobody else wants to... funny, isn't that what the capitalists say?

How much "work" do I have to do to be eligible to participate? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ And the other extreme is lumpenproletarian sloth (but then again, since you're an anarchist, I wouldn't expect you to know about what Marx called the "lumpenproletariat"). :p

TC, you and I should have qualified our posts in regards to kids and, more importantly, retirees and the disabled.

[bcbm]

And the other extreme is lumpenproletarian sloth (but then again, since you're an anarchist, I wouldn't expect you to know about what Marx called the "lumpenproletariat").

Yeah, I've never read Marx, and I certainly haven't been on here long enough to understand the various class distinctions. Get a clue.

In any case, there is no "extremes" of work and sloth. You sound like a Victorian moralist: "Man was created to work, not to speculate, or feel, or dream. Every idle moment is treason." Please. Fuck the Protestant work ethic that has come to dominate the thinking of people on the right and the left. People are naturally inclined towards "sloth," and only work regular hours and patterns at one job because they are forced to, as advocated above (the law of low wages from "communists," how quaint). Why continue to embrace this bullshit? If people want to work an hour here and there at varying tasks, who cares? Let them. What needs to get done will.

[Marsella]

I can't wait to work half a working day. :drool:

Why else would I want a revolution?

[bcbm]

Why just half? Why work one steady job at all?

[BobKKKindle$]

It will, I think, be necessary to have some system which provides an incentive for people to work, because it does not seem realistic that people will work because they want to provide for the needs of others without some sort of material reward.

There will, of course, be some things that we can do to make work a more enjoyable experience, such as providing a range of different tasks within the workplace, improving the workplace ambiance, and reducing the length of the working day, but the need for this incentive will still exist, because any rational person prefers to do things they enjoy, instead of doing things that they find boring, and even with these changes, work will still be a boring activity.

I don't think that people should starve if they refuse to work (or do enough work) and they should still have access to food and accommodation - but they should be prevented from accessing higher-value goods and should also suffer the condemnation of the community. This means that a socialist incentive system will not be synonymous with capitalist wage labour.


If people want to work an hour here and there at varying tasks, who cares? Let them. What needs to get done will.

What about tasks that take a long time and coordination between multiple workers? Your outlook seems based on hope.

[Marsella]

Why just half? Why work one steady job at all?

Because half has a nice ring to it. :P

To be serious, I think the idea that people are going to laze off relies on the idea that people are naturally lazy without the whip of the capitalist behind them.

Well, I think that how the present system of work in structured we are fully entitled to become lazy because the work is boring, we're exploited, and our bosses are pricks.

Those problems will be attacked in a worker-ran collective.

The opposite is probably true; people enjoy doing work which is enjoyable or of which they can see the effect they are actually making.

If someone is blatantly leeching off the other workers then we may have a problem. But it really isn't so hard to tell someone to get their game together (for 4 hours a day!) :/

[Marsella]

It will, I think, be necessary to have some system which provides an incentive for people to work, because it does not seem realistic that people will work because they want to provide for the needs of others without some sort of material reward.

What, like a wage? :scared:

[Die Neue Zeit]

I don't think that people should starve if they refuse to work (or do enough work) and they should still have access to food and accommodation - but they should be prevented from accessing higher-value goods and should also suffer the condemnation of the community. This means that a socialist incentive system will not be synonymous with capitalist wage labour.

I think there was a Lenin quote regarding one side using polemic to one extreme, and then himself using polemic to the other extreme to bring balance (ie, the truth is in the middle):

We all now know that the 'economists' have gone to one extreme. To straighten matters out some body had to pull in the other direction—and that is what I have done. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1903/2ndcong/14.htm)

My "lumpenproletarian sloth" extreme was a response to the "get a job or die" capitalist extreme by another poster.

Now, as for your socialist incentive system remark, it's odd to read such remark from someone who equates democratically-planned state capitalism with the socialist mode of production (which could and should be based on labour-time).

[bcbm]

It will, I think, be necessary to have some system which provides an incentive for people to work, because it does not seem realistic that people will work because they want to provide for the needs of others without some sort of material reward.

People are naturally inclined towards some productive activities, particularly in regards to food, but also including many other things they may be interested in. If people want things (certain goods, etc), then they will pursue what needs to be done to get those. There's no need to force or coerce people in to anything. This is the system that has been historically common in human societies.


There will, of course, be some things that we can do to make work a more enjoyable experience, such as providing a range of different tasks within the workplace, improving the workplace ambiance, and reducing the length of the working day, but the need for this incentive will still exist, because any rational person prefers to do things they enjoy, instead of doing things that they find boring, and even with these changes, work will still be a boring activity.

I don't think work has to be boring. Its only the work ethics and rigidness of current models for "work" that makes it so. If one works at their own pace when they feel the need to, they won't be bored. I think much of the problem is a result of the coercion involved in making people work in the first place. If it was chosen of free-will, in order to give something back, I doubt people would be as bored today, especially with the things you list above. But we should do away with all of this rigid scheduling and hours that exists today.

And barring that, nobody should need work more than is absolutely needed.


I don't think that people should starve if they refuse to work (or do enough work) and they should still have access to food and accommodation - but they should be prevented from accessing higher-value goods and should also suffer the condemnation of the community. This means that a socialist incentive system will not be synonymous with capitalist wage labour.

What you're basically suggesting is food stamps/welfare. The lazy/jobless won't starve, but they'll be looked down upon and denied access to nicer things.


What about tasks that take a long time and coordination between multiple workers? Your outlook seems based on hope.

Then those workers will coordinate them. They don't need the threat of community shunning and starvation hanging over their heads. Perhaps they will work a few longer days and then take a week or two off- and that's fine and shouldn't suffer condemnation. It isn't base on hope, its based on allowing people freedom and trusting the ability of a free society to work without coercion. It is in the self-interest of members of a given (communist) community to contribute something back because they gain as well, removing the need for threats.

---------------------------------------------


To be serious, I think the idea that people are going to laze off relies on the idea that people are naturally lazy without the whip of the capitalist behind them.

I think human history indicates that people are generally not inclined to do more than the bare minimum of work to survive. This was the case almost universally in pre-Industrial societies, and often carried over into early industrial projects. Early workers had to be broken, brainwashed and coerced in to the toilers they are today. I think any society seeking to maximize freedom, equality and happiness would inevitably return to those patterns, although it seems some of our comrades are just as hung-up on eradicating idleness as their enemies on the right.


Those problems will be attacked in a worker-ran collective.

Can they be? Some work is just boring, full-stop, without some fairly drastic measures. And perhaps those would be implemented, I don't know. But I refuse to be constrained to any one job and any certain set of work hours and work days. ;)


If someone is blatantly leeching off the other workers then we may have a problem. But it really isn't so hard to tell someone to get their game together (for 4 hours a day!)

I should doubt we need more than two hours a day, if that. And if those hours occur at a time of the person's choosing, it probably won't be a problem.

Of course, we should also have more days off.

----------------------------


My "lumpenproletarian sloth" extreme was a response to the "get a job or die" capitalist extreme by another poster.

I was merely simplifying the position of the original poster.

[Harrycombs]

Get a job or die, and if you're uneducated or lose your job, you can do all the shit work nobody else wants to... funny, isn't that what the capitalists say?

How much "work" do I have to do to be eligible to participate? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:


What I meant was that anyone who works should be payed close to equally, in capitalism there is a huge gap of the wealth. Anyone who does any work should get payed a living, comfortable, wage even if they just take up odd jobs and such. In capitalism, if you tried this, you would be homeless and have barely what you need to survive.

Unequal, but very close to equal, wages will cause incentive to work without creating a gap and resentment between the rich and poor. Anyone can get one of the slightly higher paying jobs because education would be free. It would cause incentive also because people would want jobs that were more comfortable and enjoyable. I think anarchy might be possible, but at first I think people would be confused and need incentives to work at first.

[Awful Reality]

This isn't about will people work under a communist/socialist government, but about those who absolutely refuse to. Alexander Berkman (an Anarchist for those who don't know) suggested that we ignore them, and that they would be a minority, and trying to force them to work will cause more problems.

Under a socialist government, perhaps the government could cut off all of their rights to obtain any goods, including food, if they don't get a job of some type. I think the government should always offer common jobs to people that have lost their jobs/quit to find something else, these things would be like garbage men and such because they would be simple to perform for the uneducated, they could be payed the same, or close to the same, as everyone else because its still vital work and would also have time to study and find a new job they would enjoy. Also, this could be forced upon people who would not work (or let them starve if they choose), so they surely wouldn't enjoy it, therefor giving an incentive to do more enjoyable work.

What do you think should be done?

With education, etc, this is incredibly unlikely.

However, you cut them off from all, for lack of a better term, resources or commodity beyond the bare minimum needed to survive.

[Marsella]

What I meant was that anyone who works should be payed close to equally, in capitalism there is a huge gap of the wealth. Anyone who does any work should get payed a living, comfortable, wage even if they just take up odd jobs and such. In capitalism, if you tried this, you would be homeless and have barely what you need to survive.

Unequal, but very close to equal, wages will cause incentive to work without creating a gap and resentment between the rich and poor. Anyone can get one of the slightly higher paying jobs because education would be free. It would cause incentive also because people would want jobs that were more comfortable and enjoyable. I think anarchy might be possible, but at first I think people would be confused and need incentives to work at first.

Marx addressed this very point. Briefly, a communist does not stand for equal wages or raising workers up to the position of the capitalist but the abolishment of wage labour altogether; the abolishment of capital.

I think its a complex question though, discussing how the economy would run in a communist society. Perhaps ComradeRed could explain it in better detail.


3. "The emancipation of labor demands the promotion of the instruments of labor to the common property of society and the co-operative regulation of the total labor, with a fair distribution of the proceeds of labor.

"Proceeds of labor" is a loose notion which Lassalle has put in the place of definite economic conceptions.


What is "a fair distribution"?


Do not the bourgeois assert that the present-day distribution is "fair"? And is it not, in fact, the only "fair" distribution on the basis of the present-day mode of production? Are economic relations regulated by legal conceptions, or do not, on the contrary, legal relations arise out of economic ones? Have not also the socialist sectarians the most varied notions about "fair" distribution?


To understand what is implied in this connection by the phrase "fair distribution", we must take the first paragraph and this one together. The latter presupposes a society wherein the instruments of labor are common property and the total labor is co-operatively regulated, and from the first paragraph we learn that "the proceeds of labor belong undiminished with equal right to all members of society."


"To all members of society"? To those who do not work as well? What remains then of the "undiminished" proceeds of labor? Only to those members of society who work? What remains then of the "equal right" of all members of society?


But "all members of society" and "equal right" are obviously mere phrases. The kernel consists in this, that in this communist society every worker must receive the "undiminished" Lassallean "proceeds of labor".
Let us take, first of all, the words "proceeds of labor" in the sense of the product of labor; then the co-operative proceeds of labor are the total social product.


From this must now be deducted: First, cover for replacement of the means of production used up. Second, additional portion for expansion of production. Third, reserve or insurance funds to provide against accidents, dislocations caused by natural calamities, etc.


These deductions from the "undiminished" proceeds of labor are an economic necessity, and their magnitude is to be determined according to available means and forces, and partly by computation of probabilities, but they are in no way calculable by equity.


There remains the other part of the total product, intended to serve as means of consumption.


Before this is divided among the individuals, there has to be deducted again, from it: First, the general costs of administration not belonging to production. This part will, from the outset, be very considerably restricted in comparison with present-day society, and it diminishes in proportion as the new society develops. Second, that which is intended for the common satisfaction of needs, such as schools, health services, etc. From the outset, this part grows considerably in comparison with present-day society, and it grows in proportion as the new society develops. Third, funds for those unable to work, etc., in short, for what is included under so-called official poor relief today.


Only now do we come to the "distribution" which the program, under Lassallean influence, alone has in view in its narrow fashion -- namely, to that part of the means of consumption which is divided among the individual producers of the co-operative society.


The "undiminished" proceeds of labor have already unnoticeably become converted into the "diminished" proceeds, although what the producer is deprived of in his capacity as a private individual benefits him directly or indirectly in his capacity as a member of society.


Just as the phrase of the "undiminished" proceeds of labor has disappeared, so now does the phrase of the "proceeds of labor" disappear altogether.
Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products; just as little does the labor employed on the products appear here as the value of these products, as a material quality possessed by them, since now, in contrast to capitalist society, individual labor no longer exists in an indirect fashion but directly as a component part of total labor. The phrase "proceeds of labor", objectionable also today on account of its ambiguity, thus loses all meaning.


What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society -- after the deductions have been made -- exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labor time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another.


Here, obviously, the same principle prevails as that which regulates the exchange of commodities, as far as this is exchange of equal values. . Content and form are changed, because under the altered circumstances no one can give anything except his labor, and because, on the other hand, nothing can pass to the ownership of individuals, except individual means of consumption. But as far as the distribution of the latter among the individual producers is concerned, the same principle prevails as in the exchange of commodity equivalents: a given amount of labor in one form is exchanged for an equal amount of labor in another form.

Hence, [I]equal right here is still in principle -- bourgeois right, although principle and practice are no longer at loggerheads, while the exchange of equivalents in commodity exchange exists only on the average and not in the individual case.


In spite of this advance, this equal right is still constantly stigmatized by a bourgeois limitation. The right of the producers is proportional to the labor they supply; the equality consists in the fact that measurement is made with an equal standard, labor.


But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only -- for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.


But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.


In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly -- only then then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!


I have dealt more at length with the "undiminished" proceeds of labor, on the one hand, and with "equal right" and "fair distribution", on the other, in order to show what a crime it is to attempt, on the one hand, to force on our Party again, as dogmas, ideas which in a certain period had some meaning but have now become obsolete verbal rubbish, while again perverting, on the other, the realistic outlook, which it cost so much effort to instill into the Party but which has now taken root in it, by means of ideological nonsense about right and other trash so common among the democrats and French socialists.


Quite apart from the analysis so far given, it was in general a mistake to make a fuss about so-called distribution and put the principal stress on it.
Any distribution whatever of the means of consumption is only a consequence of the distribution of the conditions of production themselves. The latter distribution, however, is a feature of the mode of production itself. The capitalist mode of production, for example, rests on the fact that the material conditions of production are in the hands of nonworkers in the form of property in capital and land, while the masses are only owners of the personal condition of production, of labor power. If the elements of production are so distributed, then the present-day distribution of the means of consumption results automatically.

If the material conditions of production are the co-operative property of the workers themselves, then there likewise results a distribution of the means of consumption different from the present one. Vulgar socialism (and from it in turn a section of the democrats) has taken over from the bourgeois economists the consideration and treatment of distribution as independent of the mode of production and hence the presentation of socialism as turning principally on distribution. After the real relation has long been made clear, why retrogress again? Critique of the Gotha Programme (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm)

[Luís Henrique]

I don't think in a communist society any sanctions would be needed against those who "absolutely refuse to work". "Normal" people will "work" (whatever does this mean in a communist society), and won't reason like "but if John can have his housing and food without working, then I also want to not work". "Work" in a communist society should be something everybody, except probably the mentally ill, would like to do. And this is were the pathologically idle probably fall: into the health system, as sick people who can't take a healthy interest in life.

They will have their food and their housing, probably not worse than anyone else's. But nobody would like to be one of them.

The idea that idleness is a good thing is a result of capitalist labour relationships.

Luís Henrique

[bcbm]

And this is were the pathologically idle probably fall: into the health system, as sick people who can't take a healthy interest in life.

Let's define our terms here. I've always liked the quote that, to paraphrase, being idle is not about doing nothing, its simply doing things that the ruling class don't place value in. Writers, artisans, small farmers, various artisans and craftspeople not tied to a factory... all of these are generally idlers, in that they prefer to work in short bursts of intense activity separated by long periods of "idle" time.



The idea that idleness is a good thing is a result of capitalist labour relationships.

No, the idea that incessant toiling is a good thing is a result of capitalist labor relationships. This is the myth pushed by the ruling class since the Industrial Revolution, adopted by vast sections of the right and left and continually pushed to this day, as we see here. Prior to capitalism and the IR, idleness was the norm for humans.

[piet11111]

depends why that individual refuses to work if it is just lazyness then he/she would simply not get anything beyond food and drink.

[Luís Henrique]

Let's define our terms here. I've always liked the quote that, to paraphrase, being idle is not about doing nothing, its simply doing things that the ruling class don't place value in. Writers, artisans, small farmers, various artisans and craftspeople not tied to a factory... all of these are generally idlers, in that they prefer to work in short bursts of intense activity separated by long periods of "idle" time.

To the point that this is true (ie, it is the ruling class that decides what is work and what is not), it is not what is being discussed in the OP (Idleness in a classless society). To the extent that it is relevant to the OP, it is clearly untrue (writers, artisans, peasants, are of course not "idle" at all; they work and they do work a lot). In fact, even in a capitalist society, those people are generally not deemed "idle".

I don't think that people in a communist society will spend their time staring at the ceiling, unless they have a mental condition. Heck, even in a capitalist society, most "lazy" people are in fact depressed or affected by ADD.


No, the idea that incessant toiling is a good thing is a result of capitalist labor relationships. This is the myth pushed by the ruling class since the Industrial Revolution, adopted by vast sections of the right and left and continually pushed to this day, as we see here. Prior to capitalism and the IR, idleness was the norm for humans.

Obviously it was not the norm for medieval serfs or ancient slaves.

But evidently the capitalist labour relationships spread the idea that incessant toiling is a good thing - as well as the idea that idleness is a good thing. Best phrased, perhaps, in the Mexican fisherman tale (you should overwork yourself in order to get rich. What for? To able to never work again).

"Good" as in "morally good", for the bourgeois ideology, is incessant toiling. "Good" as in "sensually good", for the same ideology, is idleness.

As Marx remarks (sorry for the rhyme), under the reign of alienated labour, men feel as enslaved animals when they are exercising the strictly human activity of labour, and as free humans only when they are merely satisfying their animal needs (eating, sleeping, having sex, etc).

But those are problems of a class-divided society; in a classless society, they should be irrelevant.

Luís Henrique

[bcbm]

To the point that this is true (ie, it is the ruling class that decides what is work and what is not), it is not what is being discussed in the OP (Idleness in a classless society). To the extent that it is relevant to the OP, it is clearly untrue (writers, artisans, peasants, are of course not "idle" at all; they work and they do work a lot). In fact, even in a capitalist society, those people are generally not deemed "idle".

Its the patterns of work that determine the idle, not the amount of work produced. The pattern I mentioned above is typical of the idle, and if you're referring to those who do absolutely nothing, I'm not sure "idle" is really the correct term, nor am I even sure such people truly exist.


I don't think that people in a communist society will spend their time staring at the ceiling, unless they have a mental condition. Heck, even in a capitalist society, most "lazy" people are in fact depressed or affected by ADD.

There are vast numbers of "idlers" who enjoy laying in bed staring at the ceiling (which is not doing nothing... unless you consider thinking nothing?), and suffer from no mental conditions. I've always enjoyed laying in bed just thinking when I wake up and I'm fit as a fiddle.


Obviously it was not the norm for medieval serfs or ancient slaves.

I'm obviously referring to people who are relatively in control of their own lives, not those coerced into constant labor like serfs or wage-slaves.


"Good" as in "morally good", for the bourgeois ideology, is incessant toiling. "Good" as in "sensually good", for the same ideology, is idleness.

I would say that incessant toiling is good for the workers and idleness is good for the boss, in bourgeois ideology. Although they consistently claim the bosses work a whole hell of a lot too. Those who would prefer to work less and have more free time are largely disdained, even if they use that free time to pursue their own productive projects. I should hope a communist society would move away from such ideas.

[Luís Henrique]

Its the patterns of work that determine the idle, not the amount of work produced. The pattern I mentioned above is typical of the idle, and if you're referring to those who do absolutely nothing, I'm not sure "idle" is really the correct term, nor am I even sure such people truly exist.

This is of course an interesting discussion in and of itself, but the OP started like this:


This isn't about will people work under a communist/socialist government, but about those who absolutely refuse to.So it seems to be a completely different subject.


There are vast numbers of "idlers" who enjoy laying in bed staring at the ceiling (which is not doing nothing... unless you consider thinking nothing?), and suffer from no mental conditions. I've always enjoyed laying in bed just thinking when I wake up and I'm fit as a fiddle.Do you "absolutely refuse to" work?


I would say that incessant toiling is good for the workers and idleness is good for the boss, in bourgeois ideology. Although they consistently claim the bosses work a whole hell of a lot too. Those who would prefer to work less and have more free time are largely disdained, even if they use that free time to pursue their own productive projects. I should hope a communist society would move away from such ideas.The bourgeois quite often overwork themselves to death; they have even invented a new disease, "workaholism", which does not seem to affect working class people that much...

But "work" means different things in different contexts. The finance wizard who spends 20 hours a day concocting schemes to take advantage of the next stock market crash can possibly believe that he "works" more than your average worker. But, a. his "work" is improductive, and b. he does it for himself, not for his employer. So it is of a completely different nature.

Frankly, I have never seen people who "pursue their own productive projects" be disdained, unless such "productive projects" are clearly unsound. On the contrary, I have often walked into the idea that workers deserve their general misery; if they were smart, they would quit their jobs and become "entrepreneurs"...

Luís Henrique

[bcbm]

So it seems to be a completely different subject.

I'm not sure. I think it depends on what is meant by absolutely refusing to work.


Do you "absolutely refuse to" work?

I absolutely refuse to be tied into one particular "job" to the exclusion of all other work, as well as refuse to be tied to a set schedule.


The bourgeois quite often overwork themselves to death; they have even invented a new disease, "workaholism", which does not seem to affect working class people that much...

Depends where you draw the line on working class... I think a variety of people suffer from it, particularly in say, office work.


Frankly, I have never seen people who "pursue their own productive projects" be disdained, unless such "productive projects" are clearly unsound. On the contrary, I have often walked into the idea that workers deserve their general misery; if they were smart, they would quit their jobs and become "entrepreneurs"...

Among some, perhaps, but the general ideology supports people being toiling automatons, not thinkers and not being particularly ambitious. I was referring to projects like, say, making your own magazines or gardening or anything else that, when done in place of "legitimate" work, is frowned upon.

[Luís Henrique]

Depends where you draw the line on working class... I think a variety of people suffer from it, particularly in say, office work.

Oh, certainly... I would say that the lower the layer of the working class, the less probable they will be afflicted by it.


Among some, perhaps, but the general ideology supports people being toiling automatons, not thinkers and not being particularly ambitious.

What do you mean by "support"?

Evidently, the system works so that most people will be "toiling automatons". And also so that those "toiling automatons" believe it is their own fault that they are so.


I was referring to projects like, say, making your own magazines or gardening or anything else that, when done in place of "legitimate" work, is frowned upon.

"Legitimate work" is the production of commodities. I am sure that if you spend your afterhours gardening other people's yards for a fee, you won't be frowned upon; on the contrary, if you make some money of it, you will be used as a living "proof" that anyone can get rich, provided they aren't "lazy as most workers".

Luís Henrique

[which doctor]

In a communist society, I don't think people not working will be a problem. A very small minority may choose to do absolutely nothing, but I think being shunned by most of society will be punishment enough. If left to their own will, I think people will perform some sort of productive work, regardless of any incentives. Even some people will probably volunteer to do undesirable work if it is necessary for human life.

[F9]

its simple.
dont work-dont eat,dont eat-die
so he would go to work by his own to live!

Fuserg9:star:

[apathy maybe]

Free riding in an anarchist society - http://www.revleft.com/vb/free-riding-anarchist-t57257/index.htm
A discussion I initiated over a year ago on the same subject.

I'll think about reply to people in this thread, but seeing as my views are well represented in that thread...

[bcbm]

What do you mean by "support"?

Evidently, the system works so that most people will be "toiling automatons". And also so that those "toiling automatons" believe it is their own fault that they are so.

Or that there is no other option.


"Legitimate work" is the production of commodities. I am sure that if you spend your afterhours gardening other people's yards for a fee, you won't be frowned upon; on the contrary, if you make some money of it, you will be used as a living "proof" that anyone can get rich, provided they aren't "lazy as most workers".

I'm clearly not talking about paid work, or afterhours...

[Luís Henrique]

Or that there is no other option.

Oh, no... certainly not that. An escapist hint must always be present.

Luís Henrique

[Lector Malibu]

I guess what's popped into my mind is what about those who can not work? Seriously. I'm just asking what provision for them would be made and how would that work.

[BobKKKindle$]

I guess what's popped into my mind is what about those who can not work? Seriously. I'm just asking what provision for them would be made and how would that work.

They would make a contribution that reflected their ability (if, of course, they were able to make any contribution at all) and would be granted access to goods, just like everyone else, even though they might not have done as much work. It would be unfair to punish someone for something that was not their fault - sickness, old age, etc.


What I meant was that anyone who works should be payed close to equally, in capitalism there is a huge gap of the wealth.

No, we should not support equal pay, because not everyone has the same needs, and so it makes no sense to give everyone equal pay - someone who is suffering from an illness would require a greater share of society's resources (in the form of medical care) than a healthy worker, but if they were given the same share, the sick person might not have enough pay to meet their needs.

[Crest]

They don't have to work.


They don't have to eat, either.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Free riding in an anarchist society - http://www.revleft.com/vb/free-riding-anarchist-t57257/index.htm
A discussion I initiated over a year ago on the same subject.

I'll think about reply to people in this thread, but seeing as my views are well represented in that thread...

The link didn't work. I would be interested in reading the thread, too.

The question of how we must handle sloths is a big one. Numerous people have called up different ways to respond: nothing, classifying them as mentally ill, refusing to provide them with goods and services - I think they all have some level of merit and should be considered on the presumption that some people with no clarified mental disorder will refuse to work.

I don't think the question poses a problem for the primary stage (if one exists, of course). In terms of a technocratic/communist model, I believe most of the incentive will come from the work environments and human nature. Few people are naturally inclined to do nothing with their lives. An educational program that lasts until one is 23-25 will equip most people with the knowledge and positive reinforcement. Energy accounting can be used as an equitable method of distribution for goods that are not scarce - which amounts to practically everything other than automobiles, houses, boats, tractors, and other big items. We could utilize this shortage with personal labor time vouchers meant only for specific items. Trading the vouchers would be impossible since they, like energy credits, are personalized. You could also substitute LTV with some other method of tracking, like money based on ParEcon peer analysis.

The additional tracking method would probably provide incentive for most people to work to the best of their abilities. People who outright refuse to work in a technocratic field (which can be judged using voluntary unions) can be denied personalized energy credits.