The Dole

Is it justifiable for an able-bodied adult to not work because he does not want to, and for him to receive the basic means of subsistence?

Only if we have achieved a society where people no longer have to work to provide for basic needs. Otherwise they're taking advantage of the system. Anyone who wants to work but just has no opportunities to find a job or other extenuating circumstances should receive assistance. Really the only people who shouldn't receive assistance are people who sit around doing absolutely nothing when they are in the prime physical and mental shape to do work.

is it justified to require people to work or starve in the US, when we pay farmers to not grow food, just so that they have Skin In The Game?

In capitalism absolutely.

In communism probably, because boredom will likely set in and make anyone do something productive. But even if not, if we have the means to provide for that person why wouldn't we?

everyone should claim the dole under capitalism

would break the system

I think punishing skivers is more trouble than it's worth, they should just get paid subsistence wages of half or less or whatever of what workers get and obviously at the back of the queue for stuff. If there's a legit reason they can't work then full pay of course.

it's not about justifying such a way of life. After all whether or not you put in a constitution some measure like "you must feed everyone even if they don't work" or "whoever doesn't work doesn't eat," at the end of the day people may or may not feed those who don't work that or you would need some sort of enforcing body to make people work/feed those who don't work.

Here I think anti-labor is actually the best position. We must destroy this distinction between work and other activities. Productive activities must be voluntarily chosen not solely out of a moral obligation to help the community or some sort of incentivization through wages but rather because the activity is itself rewarding.

I should be clear that that's more of a long-term goal though. I'm not sure how feasible that would be in the short term.

This. We need a ludic revolution. Democratic control over your workplace means you can shape it into something enjoyable.

From Bob Black's Abolition of Work:

you heard it here first, cleaning sewers can be art.

Look, it's never gonna work to make work entirely voluntary until we have superrobots that do everything, at which point we don't need to theorise about it anyway. Why don't we stick to technology that actually exists now.

There exist people who love making senselessly sophisticated video edits of Bee Movie.

There must exist people who enjoy cleaning sewers.

...

See, there's this

It's like people don't seem to understand that "work" as we currently understand it isn't the only way to do things, and that by shifting away from the profit motive we can also shift away from the current soul-grinding tedium of wage labor.

A lonely, reclusive NEET living in his tiny apartment consume less resource and has less of a negative impact on the environment when compared to a guy with three kids and a big house, a car, a dishwasher and all sorts of consumer junk.

The sustainability of his lifestyle ought to be compensated.

Who gets to define what work is? If I move heavy objects around in a circle and call it work, who gets to say it isn't? Different people would have different ideas about what is actually productive, and forcing others to do stuff according to their vision of good work is an exercise of hierarchy. Artists, scientists, inventors, therapists, philosophers, and so on could all be called lazy by people who don't value that kind of work.

Every member of a society should be treated as a member of the society, and it is being a member of the society that justifies receiving means of subsistence. If someone is called "lazy" by a society, that just means they don't care about the goals the society tends to have. If someone's interests are highly divergent from a society, that could be reason to no longer consider them a part of the society, but that should be weighed against the damage that sort of ostracism would do.

It is withholding basic means of subsistence that needs justification. And when is that justified? When not working is a crime that is a matter of life and death.

the lumpen can either exist by us subsidising them and hopefully educating them or they can exist by selling each other drugs its your choice.

You realise that aside from the legitimate job market selling drugs is one of the biggest there is, particularly in ghettoes. All the problems we see are in large part because these people sell drugs because there is nothing else to do

Yes because in a society based around abundance empathy is the defualt and its unempathetic to let them starve

But then, wouldn't society just collapse if everyone simply decided to take the offer of not working?

Taking away means of subsistence from someone when they have nowhere else to go is murder. If the only thing that's keeping the society from collapsing is forcing people to work by threat of murder, then it's a slave society. Holding a society you care about together by threatening means of subsistence is like setting an alarm clock that kills you if you don't wake up fast enough–if you consider setting it in the first place, then you probably care enough that you don't need it. If you really need to get jobs done, there are other ways to incentivize it besides taking away means of subsistence, like giving rewards.

Though I would make an exception if there's some emergency that means people must work or else others die.

If you like people and dont want them to starve, yeah.

So long as people have all their needs met, I see no reason why people wouldn't be OK with cleaning sewers and other shitty (from the capitalist perspective) jobs.

Under socialism, society's values would be entirely different. Work would be seen as a obligatory component of society and rightly rewarded. Of course we'll all work less, thanks to technology, full employment and the elimination of the anarchy of capitalist production.

In capitalism, work is a muh privilege.
In socialism, work is a right.
In communism, work is a joy.

Good job this is never going to happen in the UK since there are always millions of people unemployed.

I don't say this much, but kys faggot, you're the cancer that killed the UK

NEETs are more revolutionary than most of you armchair theorists by refusing to take part in the capitalist system.

Learn to read you retarded fuck. OP's entire premise is what the Conservatives use to deprive people of the dole because they're choosing not to work in the first place, while millions are unable to find work.

His logic is that all these people are choosing not to work. I'm calling him the tumour that has ripped the country apart for the last decade and will see it fall into a Balkanized, second world police state on the outskirts of Europe.

Wouldn't "duty" be better?

Lelnin hat make another absolute abhorrent post

come back when post-leftism actually achieves anything beyond provoking a debate between 2 obscure academics

It is crucial to have to the ability to opt-out of the labor market. Otherwise capital will always have the upper hand, as labor is forced to work to survive.

OP here. That's not what I'm implying at all, and I'm sorry if it seemed like I was. I'm well aware that vast majority of people on welfare are in that situation because they have no other way, and that "welfare queen" myths are used to slash the meager benefits legitimate welfare recipients.

I'm just presenting a thought experiment: Is it okay to not work even if you can, and still be maintained by the community? Is that fair? Is that sustainable?

justifiable? yes, what freedom do you have if you cannot choose to not work without starving?
Feasible? only in communism, when people choose to work freely and are not compelled by hunger or force

The thing is, the fact you see it this way is proof just how good their propaganda machine is. In 2008 when the financial crisis hit the media quickly set to work blaming the unemployed, disabled and immigrants, and once they had rinsed out the newly rebranded welfare and sold off assets such as the Post Office, they moved onto illegal immigrants straining our resources. Over time this became the NHS and immigrants, and now because of this propaganda machine people have voted to leave the EU due to immigration and the Tories are largely regarded to be running the NHS well, despite it being in a crisis. The NHS will go within the next ten years if Corbyn loses.

I'm not sure why you say that because I agree with the rest of your post. Blaming the most powerless, marginalized, vulnerable people in our society for economic hardships of which they take the brunt is beyond heinous.

My thought experiment doesn't concern people who can't find work or the disabled, whether native-born or not.

bump