How do you deal with people who won't work?

73 posts / 0 new
Last post
nastyned
Offline
Joined: 30-09-03
Jan 10 2004 17:29

the link was rather amusing but i don't get what point you think has been proved.

could you try explaining as i'm a bit lost here.

Spartacus's picture
Spartacus
Offline
Joined: 20-09-03
Jan 10 2004 19:37

the bit where they reckon the point has been proved is where you said "and one would be forced to work in a factory". am i right in thinking that what you actually meant was "and NO one would be forced to work in a factory"?

nastyned
Offline
Joined: 30-09-03
Jan 10 2004 20:32

embarrassed DOH!

yeah, you're right.

anarchist.
Offline
Joined: 19-09-03
Jan 12 2004 15:37

Ok, so its the year 2025, we are living in an anarcho-communist society, people still want the luxuries many people enjoy today.......say a car....

Are you going to go down the mines for the raw materials, or work in the factory to use the raw materials? Or be involved in the process of making things that cause ecological damage?

Think of every thing plastic you own, that had to be smelted, causing ecological damage, doesnt that conflict with your vision of anarchism, i know it does with mine.

Quote:
Good grief, people starting to agree in an internet based discussion! I don’t think I’ve ever seen that before .

I was somewhat in shock as well. Especially as it was with alexa, i didnt think there was anyone more juxtaposed to me in their views, which makes me think even more highly of the 'abolition/refusal of work' ideas if it something all anarchists can agree on.

AlexA
Offline
Joined: 16-09-03
Jan 13 2004 11:52
anarchist. wrote:
Quote:
Good grief, people starting to agree in an internet based discussion! I don’t think I’ve ever seen that before .

I was somewhat in shock as well. Especially as it was with alexa, i didnt think there was anyone more juxtaposed to me in their views, which makes me think even more highly of the 'abolition/refusal of work' ideas if it something all anarchists can agree on.

Heh heh what about Tommy Ascaso? wink

Quote:
Ok, so its the year 2025, we are living in an anarcho-communist society, people still want the luxuries many people enjoy today.......say a car....

Are you going to go down the mines for the raw materials, or work in the factory to use the raw materials? Or be involved in the process of making things that cause ecological damage?

Firstly I reckon there's enough metal around that we could recycle a helluva lot. But yeah you'll still need reasonably large places to do that. But really I don't see what problem you have, as an anarchist, to let people do whatever jobs they wanna do! I mean if people really want cars so much they'll go out and build new ones (instead of customising old ones Mad Max style wink) then they'll do it. But why would they bother?

And if you have that little faith in people then a: do you think they're capable of running their own affairs? And b: if they're that dumb then why do you care if they do boring stuff?

Quote:
Think of every thing plastic you own, that had to be smelted, causing ecological damage, doesnt that conflict with your vision of anarchism, i know it does with mine.

Well again plastic is highly recyclable. And of course as plastic comes from oil when that's gone (since that's what the thread's about) it'll be gone too. Of course you can make it from oil from plants... but this isn't technologically viable at the mo - and don't know how "green" the processes are... will look into it.

LiveFastDiarrea
Offline
Joined: 19-09-03
Jan 13 2004 13:56

I think with most things there are enough of them now to not need more to be produced. The reason a lot of things like cars, mobile phones etc get made is because people think they need a new one and get rid of a perfectly good one.

And as alexa said you can make plastic from veggies I think it was a lot of milk bottles they made from potatoes.

nastyned
Offline
Joined: 30-09-03
Jan 13 2004 20:45

It's up to a future society to decide how they spend their time and resources.

still, i don't think the current car culture is even sustainable under capitalism so i can't see it continuing in an anarchist society.

Objecting to people wanting luxuries sounds a bit like you're blaming them for being immoral though. I put it down to society myself. the way things are set up at the moment people need to use car to get to work, go to the supermarket, take the kids to school, etc. if we can restructure society so this is unnecessary then car use will dwindle.

nastyned
Offline
Joined: 30-09-03
Jan 13 2004 21:18

another good anti work test is 'a ballad against work' at: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/2379/intro.htm

Vaneigemappreci...
Offline
Joined: 23-01-04
Jan 27 2004 16:17

the purpose of the majority of work is to produce profit and thereofre power for an elite.

This elite has the power to move where labour is cheapest so to create more profit.

With the abolition of the capitalist class then the majority of labour becomes obsolete for two main reasons.

1 Because the profit motive no longer rules the vast majority of jobs concerning advertising, office work, corporate propaganda etc are no longer relevant.

secondly because production would be for the benefit of the people not companies technology could be employed to a greater extent to take care of the menial, monotonous tasks of production thus ameliorating the situation of the public.

The abolition of capitalism would entail a drastic reduction in work, if those who could work did so you could be looking at two hour days and three day weeks in order to produce all that is required.

Work and employment are the central forms of domination in the capitalist system and as a result we have large amounts of jobs which are created for the sole purpose of producing profit and keeping the public busy and occupied.

If someone doesnt want to work in a truly free, anarchist society let it be.

Work will be something which is a burdenous necessity rather than a fake, imposed necessity. I suppose work would be for the benefit of the individual or community rather than the boss or capitalist.

Vaneigemappreci...
Offline
Joined: 23-01-04
Jan 27 2004 16:29

continued......

Also its important to understand that all products are built for the purpose of breaking, everything has a built in obsolecence, theyre made to fall apart so people have to buy a new one and people have to work to produce that equally transitory new product.

plus, if we think about petrol, cars, railways, what is their purpose?

Preominatly to get people to work and to the shopping malls to partake in activites which produce profit for executives and owners.

Mystic
Offline
Joined: 14-01-04
Jan 27 2004 17:26

Well, for starters, under a rational system of exchange, the labourer would have goods to barter with that give him bargaining power far beyond what he has now. For example, the maker of a DVD player would be able to exchange the DVD players he makes for decent amounts of food and mod cons (although it would be of course open to someone in an anarchist community to reject such material objects). This is as opposed to getting paid a shitty wage to work for long hours, when the dozens of DVD players you're making earn you next to nothing and the hundreds of quid they're sold for get creamed off by the company bosses.

Admittedly it's hard to visualise huge industrial factories in an anarchist future, but that's because the whole structure of labour will have to change in an anarchist society. I suspect huge factories will go out the window, with all their dehumanising and hierarchical principles. The result will be making things on the small scale, with the emphasis on the individual craftsman - someone in possession of high-tech tools using them to make a valuable thing (in terms of exchange) such as a DVD-player. That way we'll return to skilled, rewarding work, and the mindless drudge of labour would be a thing of the past. Plus it'll restore the artisan to his rightful place in society. If we want to take a break, we can, because we're all in charge of ourselves, and entrusted with the social responsibility to do that. I'm not arguing against collective labour (no reason why artisans can't all work in the same place), but against hierarchical labour, where the emphasis is on control instead of skill and creativity.

If someone didn't work for a long period of time, I imagine that they could be given food and shelter through charity, community help and so on, and rehabilitated in the manner someone was talking about above until they feel like starting to work again. There's always enough to go round, and I don't believe that huge proportions of the population will be suddenly infected by laziness, especially under anarchism.

thegiddygoat
Offline
Joined: 13-10-03
Jan 27 2004 18:04

surely the revolution can be more than this ?? re inventig our entire existence by the moment and rejecting everything from this shitty civilisation - not just reorganising production a little bit and sharing out the trinkets fairer... star green black

Mystic
Offline
Joined: 14-01-04
Jan 27 2004 18:09

Maybe, but with the size of the population right now I think it might be impossible to shed modern technology completely (at least at first, but the organic shift in farming seems to indicate that we might not need technology as much as the system encourages us to believe). I think that there's a way to reconcile technology with the revolution, and that it lies in restoring craftsmen to the status they deserve, but that's just my opinion, largely inspired by reading Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance smile.

thegiddygoat
Offline
Joined: 13-10-03
Jan 27 2004 18:29

sorry .. i don't mean to be argumentative ( well actually ... wink ) but i think technology has enslaved us - it caused the developemt of factories / offces and the division of labour and the destruction of the idividual through the morphing of us inot cogs in the machines.

and it mediates between us and the real world - seperating us from the rest of the community - pacifying us and keeping us numbed in our homes till it is time to go back to work at our office at the pc . All those dvd's / mini discs / tv'sare just compensations fo the life we lost at the dawn of civilisation.

carrying these tools of our oppression over inot the post revoluion ( or whatever ) world would just replicate this no matter whose hands the technoogy is in.

only by rejectihjg all this shitty system has to offer , including wage labour - a concept alien to many highly succesful societies round the world - can we be free.

I mean I thought concepts like autonomy, self reliance and freedom from hieracheis were central to anarchism - work and technoogy would necessitate both as they would lead to the existence of the divison of labour , and the growth f aclass of experts and a bureaucaracy to manage the supply of raw mats around the globe ??? ( IMO ) embarrassed

Mystic
Offline
Joined: 14-01-04
Jan 27 2004 19:36

Don't worry about seeming argumentative, I guess that's what we're here for grin.

I see where you're coming from, but in my view it's people who have ruined present society. Technology is a morally neutral thing, it can bring humanity good but it can also bring us evil. At the moment the exploiters use technology to their advantage, but I see no reason why it couldn't benefit us all - the emphasis should be on the person as master of the machine, rather than the machine as master of the person, which is the natural order of things. That's what I was trying to get across on how the producer should be restored to their important status in society, rather than the capitalists and landowners getting nearly everything for themselves.

Certain forms of technological industry, such as the robot-led factories, or computer-driven offices, are clearly flawed, reducing the worker himself to a servant of the cheap, mindless machines that toil endlessly but can neither innovate nor possess any skill or pride in work of their own. They can produce endless numbers of cloned appliances but they can't invent, learn and improve, they can't perform any of the tasks that a human being does with ease.

In an anarchist society, then, each individual worker could produce things themselves, with the help of technology if need be. As I said, I take your point, but I'm sure that it's possible to live with technology and take advantage of the benefits it can bring, so long as we don't let the exploiters twist it to their advantage.

thegiddygoat
Offline
Joined: 13-10-03
Jan 27 2004 22:43

I see what your saying but I can't see technology as neutral.It has grown up under capiatlism and is a product of it - even if people used technology 5heselves in some sort of cottage indutsry type thang there would a chain of raw matereals to finished oproduct with some poor fucker having to et the stuff out of the ground and it would need some sort of power source....all of which would mean it was exploitative and wasnt autonomous ..IMO!! smile

Mystic
Offline
Joined: 14-01-04
Jan 27 2004 23:36

The technological potential for autonomous generators exists, but it's stagnating because it suits the system to have us all interconnected under the aegis of huge power companies and the National Grid. I know that doesn't counter your argument directly, but I'm suggesting that there are alternatives provided within technology as well as outside it. I don't think that labour needs to be organised the way it is today: that kind of hierarchical organisation, where everyone is allotted one specific task, just another link in the great chain of production, is obviously crushing people. Just because it is so misused today doesn't mean that it can't be altered. Mining and transporting raw materials is obviously something that requires a mass effort however one looks at it, but there's no reason why it couldn't be organised along syndicalist lines. And don't forget the huge potential for recycling that will be opened up as soon as society loses its obsession with "profit." We don't need to devour anywhere near as much of the planet as we do, but technology itself isn't responsible for it (if it is possible to separate technology from humanity to that extent) - it's our use of technology, in the great, guzzling useless enterprise that is capitalism.

blackcladmessenger
Offline
Joined: 15-10-03
Jan 28 2004 16:19

I heard some red-anarchists say they thought we would need police/prisons for a 'transitionary' period after 'the revolution' so thats how the leftist anarcho's presumably intend to deal with people who won't work. eek cry angry black bloc star green black

nastyned
Offline
Joined: 30-09-03
Jan 28 2004 16:30

Not sure what you mean by 'red-anarchists' and 'leftist anarchos' but if you mean class struggle anarchists by those terms then you're talking rubbish.

circle A red n black star

AlexA
Offline
Joined: 16-09-03
Jan 28 2004 16:32

Hmmm well this sounds like another slightly embellished criticism of anarcho-communists from the green end of the spectrum (like captainmish saying the IWA was homophobic). Come on, messenger - if someone thought that that would make them a marxist - believing in a state which would wither away. Anarchists think that the state has to be smashed completely - we can't use it to our advantage.

I think you may be exaggerating a little bit...

blackcladmessenger
Offline
Joined: 15-10-03
Jan 28 2004 16:51

Nastyned - Not talking rubbish actually.

But as Alexa points out this may be embellished. I will check with the person who told me.

I am prone to exageration Mr. T

captainmission
Offline
Joined: 20-09-03
Jan 28 2004 20:05
alexa wrote:
(like captainmish saying the IWA was homophobic)

never claimed the IWA were homophobic, I said the Awareness league was

blackmasks
Offline
Joined: 27-12-03
Jan 28 2004 20:11

In answer to the original question.....

what do you think gulags are for eek

Er no, i envisage a kind of fund that would keep them comfortable, but maybe they couldnt have too much impact on decision making

AlexA
Offline
Joined: 16-09-03
Jan 28 2004 23:52
captainmission wrote:
alexa wrote:
(like captainmish saying the IWA was homophobic)

never claimed the IWA were homophobic, I said the Awareness league was

Yes and if the IWA allowed one of its member groups to argue against government as "a hotbed of homosexuality" then that would of course mean that the IWA was viciously anti-gay.

But it doesn't so no problem... I do still wonder where you heard that though.

Then again it might be like blackclad - you claimed you heard an actual anarcho-communist say that, but now it turns out it might have been 2nd had info? Or maybe even 3rd or 4th?

I really think we should make an effort to verify all dodgy rumours like that 1st hand, especially seeing as what programs like COINTELPRO and stuff like that did to movements in the US (a big tactic was spreading false rumours and making fake leaflets/letters/phonecalls saying things that were almost believable, but still really bad...)

brizzul
Offline
Joined: 7-10-03
Jan 29 2004 01:07

Just some thoughts on what's been said

1) All anarcho-syndicalists and anarcho-communists are against prisons and against state and private security forces. The social inequalities and alienation of society will be abolished because the state (which causes it) will be abolished. The few hundred who will still fuck up others peoples lives will be told to fuck off somewhere else. Any *extremely* serious antisocial violence (such as murder and rape) that takes place will be dealt with by the same face-to-face direct action principles that will make a revolution possible. No gulags.

2) Those who want to go off and live on self sufficient farms or hunt and gather aren't antisocial violent people and will have no one to stop them doing it.

3) Anarcho-syndicalists and anarcho-communists advocate that all the social machinery that makes things like housing, trains, food, clothing, communications, etc will be placed in the hands of those who know how to use it (ie, the workers). No central commitee is going to tell anyone what to do because there won't be one. No more bosses, no more quotas, no auto-dialling, no alienating relations with machines or people whatsoever. The craft and autonomy described by Zerzan, William Morris and Kropotkin in pre-capitalist society will have no forces squashing it out of existence.

4) Utterly useless, dangerous and alienating industries will abolish themselves when capitalism is abolished. Insurance, advertising and nuclear power come to mind. No one in their right mind is going to want them if they are not forced to want them like they are now. The millions of workers in these industries can then choose to do something useful. Even if they choose to do nothing they won't be able to do nothing in the completely filthy rich manner the upper classes do nothing now. They get away with that because they have the state. Instead of unemployment we can all work a hell of a lot less.

5) So lazy people?. People who refuse to do absolutely nothing useful forever must be trying very hard at it. Even very very lazy people must sometimes fancy trying a bit of brick laying or driving a lorry or teaching kids football or entertaining people as a kick-boxer or comedian. All work will have the alienating elements removed so even if you worked in a factory, one day you could drive the lorry, the next do some phoning, the next drive the forklift, etc.

Thats my take on it.

blackcladmessenger
Offline
Joined: 15-10-03
Jan 29 2004 10:38
Quote:
Then again it might be like blackclad - you claimed you heard an actual anarcho-communist say that, but now it turns out it might have been 2nd had info? Or maybe even 3rd or 4th?

Yes it was 2nd hand, but from a very good friend. They are going back to those people and questioning them more, then they will post here. It certainly wasnt any fourth hand urban myth. And i am aware that it is contry to anarcho-communist theory in genral.

Quote:
really think we should make an effort to verify all dodgy rumours like that 1st hand, especially seeing as what programs like COINTELPRO and stuff like that did to movements in the US (a big tactic was spreading false rumours and making fake leaflets/letters/phonecalls saying things that were almost believable, but still really bad...)

Fair enuff point Alexa. And it will prob just turn out that it was a couple of dicks that don't know nowt and were just primmie baiting and posturing as working class lads or something. grin

AlexA
Offline
Joined: 16-09-03
Jan 29 2004 11:15

or equally some commie-baiting: "they want everyone to work in factories" etc. etc. grin

(and that doesn't just run contrary to mainstream anarchist communism, but to anarchism per se - you can't be an anarchist and want a transitional State! That's some kinda Leninism)

red n black star

thegiddygoat
Offline
Joined: 13-10-03
Feb 6 2004 19:30
brizzul wrote:

2) Those who want to go off and live on self sufficient farms or hunt and gather aren't antisocial violent people and will have no one to stop them doing it.

/quote]

I object to this - I am both violent and exteremly antisocial star green black

Augusto_Sandino
Offline
Joined: 21-02-04
Feb 28 2004 21:00

In a totally egalitarian society no-one would steal, and that would get rid of alot of other crimes too. What crime persisted would be viewed as a mental illness. I think the militia would do alot of "mopping up" too, but only as long as anarchy is in danger, and the militiamen would need to be commited anarchists to prevent them abusing their power.

As for people who wont work, they could be thrown out if need be. If everyone voted for it, then it wouldnt be authoritarian. The same with all other criminals as well. Or action like that used against scabs in unions could be used, like no-one talking to them, general harrasment etc.

But prisons, i cant accept that. I'd rather just have murderers and paedophiles shot than have to imprison them. "Taken for rides" like in Spain '36 again. Actually, anarchist society in my view would just follow Spain '36 completely, but without the bloody communist party....

LeighGionaire
Offline
Joined: 28-02-04
Mar 2 2004 18:04
nihilista wrote:
I've been thinking about this in relation to some of the other debates going on here and elsewhere.

If we have an anarchist revolution what happens to people that just don't want to work. I'm not talking about people who can't work, I mean people that just can't be bothered.

Let them starve.