Communism and Laziness

I dont see why not. As long as its a normal house and not "oh btw I want to live in the ISS/a secret vulcano liar".

Market socialism. It was the mixture of the luxuries of capitalism with the intents of socialism. Might not have been perfect, but it was on the right path to a comfy lifestyle.

get tghe fugck out of here u revisionist piece of shit

suck my ass you 20th century ass left behind faggot

The harder you work, the closer we will get to a fully automated society. Once we achieve that, you will be strained much less and can take time off. Of course, in an AnCom society, we won't Gulag you because we can't impose authority on you, just don't expect much social interaction and collaboration while you're out of work

...

I like this thread

...

Probably the same way as it its now

Don't listen to the work fetish slaver even, everyone should have the right to work or to not work.

It seems pretty fair too me if you're a low maintenance person you'd have to work less. Our goal is to reduce working hours across the board through increased mechanization and automation.

Laziness is the prime mover of progress and will literally save humanity.

If communism comes you won't even need to work five days a week, or eight hours a day.

High automatization + 100% occupation = way less work for everybody. You won't feel the need to lay around because you already will be.

Anyone who didn't give a reply like this is a bootlicker in disguise and shouldn't be trusted.

It's not like you could do anything with what you earn. You have no freedom to do anything with your assets because they don't exist, by definition. You just have a state provide you bread or housing. Oh, or the more fanciful-and-totally-backed-with-
historical-evidence notion that individuals will do that voluntarily (and that nobody will decide to walk off the commune and revolt), let's not forget about that.
If you allow the individual to start up businesses and compete for the consumer's business, then you will at least have competition and not a forced relationship you cannot walk away from.

If it's a good socialist system, you will still be able to rest. There are different ideas about work, and obviously if a crisis requiring work happened, work would be enforced. Id wager you'd have more free time.

What makes you think the path of least resistance is global equality? Could the elites not enforce some eugenics or something to cull billions and allow only the upper echelons to survive? Why is the next response "we need to allow everybody a life"? Pragmatism is lost in that response because the capitalists will simply refuse. And the government will side with them. It will just be the third world asking for aid, even more so than today.

because inequality is only the path of least resistance for a small percentage of people.

It is irrelevant what the masses deem the beneficial path if they have no leverage. Which they don't. A coalition of capitalists and the nation-states will cull the masses and result in the 0.0001% holding all the power, who will now become the 100%.

If fully automated luxury gay space communism is an actual thing, work for survival will no longer be a thing. Your work then are your hobbies now, it's not the daily grind most people like you and I are used to.

In Communism your work time will be as limited as possible, because there is no more incentive for companies to profit off your surplus labor value by making you work more than you need to.

It would be like being on vacation all the fucking time compared to the 80 hour work week you endure under Capitalism.

Of course there will be an incentive, you'll just call them kulaks and kill them. You don't get to set the terms of agreement for your own employment if you voluntarily enter into the contract. Nobody owes you anything. The same goes if you decide to open up your own business. Instead of hiring the guy who wants to earn exactly what the dish he just prepared earns (because risk does not exist), you will hire the person who will, inevitably, undercut him.

brb going to fight 100 guys by myself

...

Most people don't earn enough when they are working to afford to do that. Especially if they have children and a family to support. Most people won't be able to stop working until they retire. In an ideal world, people would have plenty of free time. One of the most common socialist demands is a reduction of the standard working week, giving us 3 or even 4 day weekends.

In Sovietism yes.

In Communism your savings would last longer.
/thread

I wish this was the first comment

Once again anarchists display their complete lack of education on history or theory. Do you mean Stalinism? Do you know what a soviet is, or how the soviets of Russia first arose in 1905? You know there were many anarchist soviets? Do you even know the history of your own political tradition?

for the majority of it's time the Soviet Union was fascist so you see why I made that mistake? Don't get triggered. I'll use Stalinism from now on then.

No. Just no. I'm not even a tankie but that assertion is just plain retarded.

fascist, autocratic, dictatorship is all the same to me and to most irl tbh. for good reasons.

Just because you and others don't understand the difference between these things, does not mean there are no important differences. You should strive to educate yourself and others, comrade. This lack of theory will come back to bite you in the ass.

Holy fuck, I wish I could just decide I would take a year off work.

jesus christ

I personally think material conditions and social psychology have a lot to do with making people lazy.
If you put effort into creating a society that cares about people and fosters their interests, I think lazy people will be less of an issue.

Isn't fascism primary trait preventing workers from organizing. Not saying the Soviets were fascist, it's infantile to assert that p, but they certainly did a lot of interfering with workers organizing.

nice quads fam

I think laziness has sort of a weird connotation in todays society. Anything that is not work (ie working to produce profits for somebody else) is seem as laziness. But let's say I left work early to prepare dinner for my family. Is that laziness? It might be seen as so, but I think it was kropotkin who made the point that food and housing is often overlooked. By feeding my family, I am helping let's say my kids to stay healthy, and helping my wife to keep her healthy. I am directly benefiting society.

I think it largely stems from our definition of work. I've taken days off of work to walk around the park picking up trash. I wasn't working, but I was contributing to society. Why the dichotomy? By spending a day taking care of yourself and your needs should not be frowned upon. As a member of society your health is important, including mental health. How can we expect to have a cooperative society if it is composed of sick components?

Nice quads, nice post

To what extent is that behavior even tolerated in Capitalism? Is what you describe really an option for everybody? And how does this look in your CV? Anyway, it's a good question how socialism would handle that, especially for those who make proposals of consumption points with expiration date.

One proposal I have seen is pretty straightforward, and something like that could work in systems with these expiring points or even as reformist idea for social democrats: It would be a modification of the pension system. The system has a default assumption when citizens stop working and start getting a pension by the state, and this is a default setting you are individually allowed to modify. You can take some free time paid by the state at an earlier point and then your pension is just delayed by that amount of time. Of course, there is some limit to that, so you can't say that you take such a long break that your pension starts when you are 150.