Results 21 to 40 of 67
They does'nt refute my point at all, thats a seperate problem, people were ready and willing to fight, this thread is about obligatory labor.
And....you are going to work.
If I'm going to work--then each and every one of you are damn well going to work. Want to have a Soviet (I have them--and TRUST ME--they aren't that nice. REALLY--you people don't KNOW what you are in for, but that's another subject.)
A vote? A Plebiscite?
You are going to work. Talk to workers--they want NO ONE sluffing off.
As TC pointed out, work is always going to be "obligatory" regardless of how society is organized because humans will always be compelled to interact with the environment in order to gain access to the things we need to survive and protect the welfare of our species. However, obligatory labour can also serve a useful purpose in a post-revolutionary society as a means to ensure that people who are engaged in administrative tasks instead of physical labour do not become isolated from the mass of working people, as this could potentially lead to the emergence of a new elite within the state apparatus and ultimately the retoration to capitalism. During the Cultural Revolution (1966-1976) students were famously sent to the countryside to perform agricultural labour and learn from the experiences of the peasantry, and the lessons of this period are valuable for future attempts to revolutionize society.
Exactly. TomK is 100% right here. Anyone who thinks otherwise should get a bit more realistic. For the reasons TC elaborated especially. Communists want to abolish exploitation of man by man, work is still necessary. There is no justifiable reason why a capable individual should be allowed to enjoy the spoils of society without contributing back to it.
Old Marx got that one right.
The Technocracy argument is just an evasive joke. Unfortunately we don't live in Star Trek land or wherever you would like to believe, and until we have taken labour out of the equation pretty much (which won't be for a very long time), we're going to need everyone we can to pitch in and help. By all means find as many ways to reduce work time as possible, but that doesn't alleviate the social responsibility to contribute to the society you live in.
Yeah, I conceded that and said that despite their zeal it would still be hard to imagine them winning, which is all that would have mattered.
Well I'm lookin real hard and I'm trying to find a job but it just keeps gettin tougher every day
I'll second this here. Work for work's sake is medieval, and is one of those pious, mindfuck arguments that comes from the religion racket, for purposes of power-mongering.
Considering that society is becoming more and more "politicized" -- that is, class conscious -- as the parasitic role of capital is increasingly decayed and exposed, there is a lot to be said for playing a * political * role as a revolutionary anti-capitalist. This alone comprises intellectual work and can have a disproportionate effect on society through building class struggle.
Political work will continue to play an important role towards, in, and through a global working-class revolution.
Right -- and besides, would we really *want* to credit someone for voluntarily digging ditches while idling a (mechanized) bulldozer, when they could be working at something higher-level, self-chosen, and possibly political?
The reason why a capable individual should be allowed to enjoy the spoils of society without contributing back to it is this: In the context of a capitalistic society the non-contributing person is implicitly making a political statement of protest, since the capitalist system is set up to exploit labor.
And within a socialist / communist society, as long as one is not actually counter-revolutionary, the non-contributing person may be making the implicit political statement that the nascent society is capable enough to *not need* the forced labor of every single individual.
Actually, many of us *do* live in "Star Trek land", compared to just 100 years ago. The normal, expected standard of living in industrialized and developed countries, even for children and adolescents, is far more luxurious and comfortable, in myriad ways, than humanity has *ever* known before, with far less strenuous labor.
Think of all of the office jobs out there in which the workforce is barely even *productive*, in the standard sense of the term. These days those white-collar workers are playing more of a * political * role, if unwitting, than anything else. Through their participation in the conventional routines of workaday life they are propping up the conventional social reality, a la the controlled hologram "programs" in the Matrix movie.
Ironically this political participation is also a de facto democratization of the bureaucracy, and now the Democratic Party has come to power in the U.S., usurping the Republican Party, because of this diffuse, bland, but broad-based incorporation of younger generations into the mainstream political establishment.
Given the enormous capacity (wealth) of our post-industrial age, we should be saying: "Ask not what you can do for your country, but what your country can do for you."
This "fair share" stuff is moralistic and is therefore highly objectionable. "Fair share" is ultimately a political determination that cannot be decisively reached in the abstract, on a discussion board. We can certainly discuss and take positions, but using the term "fair share" doesn't clarify *anything*.
These are *horrible* assumptions and are a disservice to revolutionary thought. Biology doesn't force us to work, as there have been plenty of ruling-class people who have gone cradle to grave without having to perform or produce for anyone, and they were healthy enough throughout *their* lifetimes.
The same argument serves to disprove that the "nature of the world" always requires work from everyone.
I do appreciate the leveling spirit you're expressing here, TC, but again, I'd say you, like Post-Something, are approaching this issue from more of a moralistic and even religious perspective.
We *cannot* ignore the material reality in front of us -- should a revolution that overthrows capitalism only sink into becoming an agrarian regime, just so that everyone can work equally as farmers? This is the pitfall of only focusing on the human-relations side of things, while ignoring the material bounty that we have been born into.
I don't mean to be nit-picky here, but the state should act in the interests of the *political objectives * first and foremostly. Too many populist and reformist conclusions can be easily pushed if we orient political power to "serving the people". The well-being of the people will -- paradoxically and counter-intuitively -- be a secondary result, or byproduct, of a state that acts correctly in the interests of the socialist revolution and of a global communist society.
Yes, people should be making demands on the state, but only collectively. This is where the power of labor lies, anyway, and the state should *not* be responsive to individual, private concerns, or else it would open the doors to a counter-revolution by a privileged elite.
Extending the function, the state would only be able to make demands on people if it was so decided by the workers, collectively, in their own interests. This might mean mobilizing additional units of the workers militias, pulled from the ranks of the unemployed, to fight against counterrevolutionary forces. This kind of decision could *not* be made by individuals or by private concerns.
Bob, this leaves a lot of wiggle room. Are we not surviving as a species, with less work, thanks to the * mechanization * and * automation * of our interaction with the environment? We have technological tools that allow us to sample a multitude of variables about the natural environment, thereby allowing weather modeling and predictions, using computers. This allows us to mobilize in advance of many natural disasters, protecting ourselves as organisms.
My position on this is that even administration and labor should be automated as much as possible, which would also serve to remove the threat of elitist rule from administration. If the point of having a labor-driven economy * at all * is to service the consumer (in the broadest sense of the term), then why not put the consumer / worker in the driver's seat, with collective oversight over the functioning of the entire supply chain?
---
My comprehensive position on this topic is here,
"This argument"
http://www.revleft.com/vb/argument-t95354/index.html
and there is very good discussion on the subject of labor requirements at this thread:
"The workings of a planned economy"
http://www.revleft.com/vb/workings-p...505/index.html
Chris
--
--
___
RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162
Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/
3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com
MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu
CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u
-- Of all the Marxists in a roomful of people, I'm the Wilde-ist. --
The reason why a person who refuses to work in a capitalist society is a political statement is because he is refusing to be exploited, which is a fundamentally immoral action.
However, in the case of an egalitarian society, exploitation ceases to exist. Therefor we have a whole new scenario. There is simply "contributing to society", in order to earn your share; oppression and wage slavery aren't a part of it. What possible kind of progressive political statement can be made in an egalitarian society? Again, what justification is there for a person refusing to work?, because your reason is a non argument:
p1: I do not want to work
p2: society does not need me, whether I work or not
c1: I can just choose not to work as I will be taken care of nonetheless.
Well, this is illogical. For a number of reasons. First of all, social responsibility, you are born into a world brought about by the labour of other individuals. To use these utilities, you are enhancing your existence. By doing so, you are indebting yourself to others; you are signing a social contract. To be able to break this contract, you have to be able to provide evidence of being treated unjustly, to warrant your exclusion from the system.
Secondly, if all individuals decided to uptake this position (highly unlikely though it may be), society would not function. It is not fair that some should work, and others shouldn't, based on no real grounds. Therefor everyone should work, in some way or another.
I think you may have missed my point. I'm saying that until you've mechanized all forms of labour, people are still going to have to work. As I've explained above, it's not moral that some work, and others don't, so even if that means an hour a day, people should work. Again, please outline a decent justification for allowing a group of perfectly capable individuals to remain unproductive, while still using the utilities and resources of the community they live in. The community should reign supreme, and if it doesn't approve of providing a bunch of people, who do nothing for them, with the luxury of everyone else; then it shouldn't have to.
First of all, just for the record, I'd like to note that I'm * not * talking about myself -- I've always been a self-motivated and dedicated worker, especially in my chosen profession. And, I fully support the socialist revolution and will continue to contribute politically.
To address your point I'd like to refer back to this argument:
Another way of putting it is to say: Imagine that the revolution swept through and land became communalized, like back before the enclosures. If people could make their living herding goats, or using solar cells, or living by a stream, or eating from an orchard, would there be any *problem* with that?
I think it would be the responsibility of society to make the political arguments to *convince* those asocial types to become more a part of the larger community. For some people there may not be *any* argument that convinces them. Does this mean that they should be *forced* into some type of labor? Would a socialist / communist society have *an interest* in forcing people to work if they didn't want to, and could realistically live without working?
Good, that's admirable.
No, there would be no problem whatsoever. But this doesn't affect anything I have just pointed out. These people are still working. In fact, every single example you have given would be beneficial to the society the individual would live in. Let's look at them:
Herding goats: Manual labour. Looking after goats so that the rest of the community can eat. Sounds like pretty basic work to me.
Using Solar cells: providing energy for the community you live in. Fundamentally important.
Living by a Stream: And doing what? Fishing? Collecting water? Also important.
Eating from an Orchard: Which is tended to by whom? You'll need someone to look after that orchard surely, and if you've been doing nothing lately, there's no reason why the community should have to give you its fruits.
All the examples you've given require an inter relational system of agreement. ie. I'll go hunt, you get some water, then we'll all share in the end. But in none of your examples, have you portrayed an individual doing nothing at all but live off of others work. And surely, if there was such an individual who strolled around eating peoples fruits, wasting their resources and and doing nothing but live directly for themselves, then the community should have some means of standing in the way.
If a group of people want to exist on a very basic means of living, then by all means, they should be allowed to. But none of this denies that it should primarily be achieved through a collectivist framework.
For example, there could be a group of individuals who love to live extremely simply. Fair enough. They have the option of organising and seperating from the community at large, and setting up there own legislative, executive and democratic branches. But again, these people need to work together, and they should have the option of telling people to stop being lazy if they want to. They are not "asocial".
I guess this point blends into the communist principle of not allowing private concerns to get disproportionate political power or disproportionate access to resources.
Then this point deals with the difference between anarchism and communism. What is the relationship to be between the majority and the minority, in a post-capitalist society? Anarchists would vehemently say that they could go off in their own direction, as you've laid out, without needing any larger, overarching structure / government.
But beyond achieving a basic, post-capitalist material support for modern living for all through collectivism, might there be further concerns -- ones on the "flipside" from self-sustaining material support? I mean to ask about the more complicated side of things, that dealing with social mores and formal laws.
Wouldn't the majority have an *interest* in at least being in regular contact with minority groupings? And what if some internal troubles developed within a minority grouping? Would the majority have an interest in intervening there? Would the majority have a certain code of laws for its own acceptable social functioning? And a system of punishments with which to enforce those laws?
As pleased as I am with being a Marxist / socialist / communist for dealing with material issues, I have to admit that the more governmental side of things can be much more tricky...!
I don't think a communist would actually disagree either. Your post sort of probes into the whole structure of Soviet Democracy, and you've outlayed a couple of interesting points which I'll try to cover. However, I think both communists and Anarchists would be fine with a group of people "going off in their own direction" if it was evident that it would be a beneficial move.
Well, let's look at how a society could be structured first. Say for example, you have commune A. Commune A is made up of a group of people who collectively share legislative and executive powers to run their commune. They can choose to have a constitution, they can choose not to; but it is their choice collectively.
If Commune A feel it necessary, they can collectively decide to have an agreement, or law, that murder shouldn't be allowed, for example. They can even go so far as to allow it to be punishable, and they could decide who would carry out this punishment. Also, commune A can select a delegate to represent them in a larger body for collaberation with other communes and so on. But these delegates will be recallable at all times to make sure their interests are being accurately represented. If, for example, a person doesn't agree with the rules of a specific commune, he can either hope to change his commune through democratic means, or move to another where the change has already taken place.
Now, all good and well so far you might say, but what if we introduce commune B and C? For whatever reason, A and B have fallen out, and violence may ensue, is it morally acceptable for C to step in and help find a solution? I think intervention is perfectly fine, and in fact morally necessary to keep the peace between the communes. This may also end up being one of the most important functions of the delegates I have pointed out earlier, along with allocation of resources to other communes etc.
So, I don't know if I made my point any clearer, but basically, I think democracy should reign supreme. Your response seems to indicate that you may in fact prefer individual autonomy over democracy in some instances, so this may be the point of contention between us.
I'm cross-posting this to these two threads which are covering similar ground:
Opposing Ideologies > obligatory labor...lets discuss about it shall we?
Theory > We are the anarchic revolution
I actually think that a close-knit, materially abundant, classless society *would* eliminate virtually all of the remaining anti-social urges people may have. The whole category of crime is societally produced, so the elimination of the profit motive, need, want, and alienation would eliminate inhumane motivations altogether. This isn't a Romantic formulation, either.
The way in which various groupings interact with each other, and with the larger, communist economy is important to me, but I guess at this point we can only *speculate* about its structure. I don't mean to take up much time with guesswork, but I'd imagine some interlocking system of local administrations would emerge, with a recallable meta-administration emerging from that.
Yes, people should be making demands on the state, but only collectively. This is where the power of labor lies, anyway, and the state should *not* be responsive to individual, private concerns, or else it would open the doors to a counter-revolution by a privileged elite.[/quote]I agree the communism is not about servicing goods. The goal of equality isn't "everyone gets a pony." The goal of equality is a form of justice.
“Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus” Let justice reign though the world parishes.
Communism is a radical demand and an obligation to humanity as such. Not as individuals. The argument against capitalism, isn't simply that communism will distribute goods more effectively (but it will). the argument is that capitalism radical truncates humanity in unacceptable ways. I agree with you.
Maybe. I don't real know if I accept this vision of collective. It may be that we simple have difference of opinion on the nature of the Republic. Generally speaking, there are two types of Republic. A Rousseau republic and a Machiavellian republic. In a Rousseauean republic, the purpose of the republic is to express preference. For a Machiavellian republic, the purpose of the republic is to defend itself from internal and external domination.
In this case, it's not clear that we should be so concern about collective decisions as an expression of preference. Before it becamse a bad word, dictator was the speaker of Rome. They would grant a man power over the entire state to ensure its security. Sometime the dictator would be Cincinnatus, othertimes it would be Nero. I'm just pointing out as you did earlier that "collective interest" is problematic.
communist liberation *into* what?
No, you're misrepresenting what I'm saying here. I would say that communism *is* about *providing* goods (and services), on a collective basis, but not about catering to private interests.
The goal of equality is that everyone gets food, shelter, electricity, sewage, and all of the rest of the amenities of modern living that our technology is able to provide. Beyond that people can request ponies, or anything else, from the state. If there is enough demand, or if some kind of special accomodations are required (like land for animals), then the communist state would necessarily intervene and provide and regulate, transparently.
If only a few people have special requests then they could probably find their supplies through word-of-mouth, without having to put in a formal request through the state.
I suppose so, but this, too -- "justice" -- would also be a byproduct of a world that collectivizes and empowers labor along with the material world that labor controls.
I do *not* agree with this at all, because a communist world would most certainly be secular.
Okay, I agree with this portion.
I appreciate your reflection on the *spirit*, or future-directed orientation, of a global communist society (if this is what you mean by referring to a "Republic").
As I've noted, just solving the labor and material issues would go a *long* way towards providing humanity with a more humane footing for its future. However, I *am* critical of those revolutionaries who stop at that point and don't want to look at the possibilities for collective projects that a communist, collectivized labor force would make possible. It's an important point to consider because we should have the longest vision possible, so that we know in what direction we're headed. This allows us to deflect arguments that come at us from tangents more easily so that we can stay on-course.
So beyond liberating humanity from capitalist exploitation and oppression, what would a communist society liberate humanity *into*?
I agree that greater access to resources allows individuals to enlighten themselves and develop their personalities more than would be possible with *fewer* material goods and services. As a Wilde-ist, I will refer to this axiom:
Originally Posted by Oscar Wilde
The collective interests of a global communist society would be inherently different than the concerns of a classic republic, as you're referring to here. This is because of the comprehensively global scale of the communist society -- once the capitalist, counter-revolutionary forces were crushed there would not be any opposition to collective power by labor, over labor.
In this way "collective interest" would be a tremendous improvement in the reality of human life and livelihood over anything that has gone before. I would suggest using this factory- or workplace-based system, posted transparently to the Internet:
Affinity Group Workflow Tracker
http://tinyurl.com/yvn2xq
However, I can understand that "collective interest", beyond the liberation of humanity from exploitation and oppression by private interests, can become complex, or, worse, complicated. While we're obviously not there yet, I consider it a valid question to consider * what kind * of vision (or preference) a liberated global workforce would have.
Would that society look to extend the longevity of the human lifespan? Maybe liberate all animals from *their* nature-bound existence by somehow enabling them with mass communications? Space exploration? A travel binge for everyone?
Obviously this is all highly speculative, but again, I think it's at least worth thinking about. Given that such enormous capacity (of resources, of labor) would be freed up, we would have to consider what to do with ourselves, and with it.
Even now, in our highly developed, communications-enabled world, many people are undergoing existential crises because we're so accustomed to struggling and scraping against the current, on a mass scale, just for basic progress and development. Now much -- if not all -- of this is in our laps -- in the developed world -- and the rest *should* be about extending this wealth and convenience to the remainder of the world's population. This sentiment is what makes us revolutionaries.
But those who *aren't* revolutionaries now find themselves twisting in the wind, purposeless in their own personal Gardens of Eden (more or less). The average person in the developed world can now easily expend their entire lives in private, without *having* to concern themselves with the rest of the world, and many do exactly that.
Our collective interest, * right now *, is in tapping *all* of the existing human potential, in order to push through to liberate *all* of humanity from capitalist exploitation, once and for all.
Ok, we've really deviated from the original topic of this thread, so I'm going to make it quick:
I think there will still be "crime" in a communist society, and I think to say otherwise would be far too economically determinist. I agree that the whole category of economic crime would be taken care of, but not all crimes are carried out on an economic basis. Obvious ones like murder and rape would most likely still remain, and a society should be equiped well enough to defend itself against these elements. However, I fail to see how this relates to obligatory labour, so I shall assume that you agree with me in my previous statements, unless you have an issue which you feel we still haven't discussed.
Also, I entirely agree that we can only speculate about the structure of a communist economy, I was merely using the example to explain my point that "laws" etc can be achieved in a communist society, and the relationships between groupings in society need not be so complex as to create major problems.
Obligtatory is a euphemism for forced. Hitler was a big fan of obligatory/forced labour. "Arbeit macht frei" (Work brings freedom) was emblazoned on the gates at Dachau where many German communists met their deaths. I find the idea detestable.
If you honestly think the parallel you just drew is in any way serious, I recommend you either grow a brain, or you read over this thread a couple hundred times to memorize the arguments. Because a commune is not a concentration camp, and having been to Auschwitz and seen the inscriptions myself, along with all the other horrors, I find it quite offensive that you actually believe it possible we would be debating something of that magnitude.
Sorry if I my comment angered you or seemed stupid in some way.
Can you tell me the difference between obligatory and forced?
Yes, I agree with this, especially in the period of socialist revolution to overthrow the capitalist counter-revolution. We could even reasonably argue here for the use of obligatory, or even forced (commanded) labor in the service of the fight against the capitalists, since the workers revolution would be paramount.
There's a slight contradiction, or overlap, here -- to clarify:
It's only "immoral" to not work if someone else has to involuntarily contribute *their* labor as a replacement for yours -- ? (Correct?)
You note that "until you've mechanized all forms of labour, people are still going to have to work." So this means that once a certain kind of labor has been mechanized there's no question of morality anymore, because human labor is no longer involved. So, for example, I could check on the weather report today without morality being involved because I'm not obliging anyone to work instead of *me* in order to provide the weather report -- it would have been done anyway, mostly through *very* mechanized means, and I can enjoy free, a-moral access to it, right?
To extend this principle, what if someone could derive their entire youth-to-grave existence of choice without obliging anyone to provide labor *for* them, *and* without having to provide any labor themselves?
A communist economy would liberate the existing assets and manufacturing ability of society to such a degree that no one could * possibly * feel obligated to work in return for the reality of their collective use -- we could call these the spoils of victory over capitalism, or the collective reclamation of the cumulative labor value stolen from our ancestors.
Additionally, * no one * could claim private ownership or exclusive rights to any * natural * resources within a communist economy -- this would mean that, aside from some regulations, people would have free access to, say, apples from (nature-perpetuating) apple trees, and so on.
I, personally, am not of the kind of personality who would go in this direction of asocial existence, especially when so many options would be available, but I raise these points to point out that an asocial, "back-to-nature-but-with-modern-conveniences" kind of lifestyle would be more than possible within a communist economy.
I have to really question whether *any* crime, either against "property" (assets, resources) or person would really take place, given full, genuine human liberation. I won't make a habit of posting long passages of quotations, but this one has already been written, so here it is:
Originally Posted by Oscar Wilde
No harm done
It's just that the issue is so much more complex than that, and it's quite frustrating to see it attributed to such a horrible notion.
The difference between obligatory and forced? Well, it's quite simple really:
In a forced system one would be threatened with physical force if they don't comply. Whereas, in an obligatory system, one would have to contribute their labour, in some way, to earn their share in society's spoils. If they don't, they would be asked to leave, or they just wouldn't be allowed to use any of society's produce.
