Marx said that only those wh work should be able to freely take part in the communist society and its fruits...

One thing that pisses me off is that physically disabled people are often given a free ride when they could easily have a profession in many service level jobs

I'm a software developer and all you need to do my job is a functioning hand, eyes, and a non-disabled brain. Same with something like a barber, data entry, etc. I don't think most physically disabled people really need assistance beyond free/subsidized equipment unless their bones are made of glass or they're a quadriplegic

Just look at the creator of this website

good post

It's not a reactionary quote. Once everybody is employed, the working hours decrease. The more automated some jobs decrease the more they decrease (also I don't believe this utopian bullshit of full automation, automation itself creates different areas of work). So the point is: When everybody is employed, and some industries are automated, work hours for everybody may go down to like two or three. The USSR itself considered a five hour workday at some point.

So, let me ask you this, anarkiddie: Would you rather have a society where a part of the population works as hard as under capitalism while a the rest is a bum and leeches off a gift economy, because "fuck you mom and dad", or would you rather have a society in which everybody works but increasingly small hours? There is literally no reason for people not to work once artifical barriers to production are abolished, actually, people want to work in some form - ask any welfare queen, they are all feeling deeply awkward/bitter about their situation and don't really enjoy it. Wanting to contribute to society is, dare I say, human nature.

the more automated some jobs become*

I second this, to ask yourself "b-but what about the ill and the old" when you read Lenin is a redundant question when you actually look at historical reality. Did Lenin not implement a welfare state?!

When and where?

Anarchist who doesn't read his own books? Just another day on Holla Forums

Proudhon, What is Property? (1840):
marxists.catbull.com/reference/subject/economics/proudhon/property/ch03.htm

I.e. originator (according to Proudhon) is St. Simon, while it is the founder of the Anarchism that was most fervent perpetuator.

Also, Marx did say it - in a roundabout way - in Critique of Gotha Programme.

Relevant titbit: in their purges of Anarchists ("Black Guard", Moscow-1918), Communists were asking those that they caught questions about Anarchism - and were releasing only those who would be able to actually answer them. Those who were unfamiliar with Anarchism were dealt with as the regular criminals.

Obviously, their care would be the responsability of their family. However, taking care of those who are unable to do it on their does require a labor force.

An other anarchist pointed out right below that post but let's ignore that so we can masturbate to how intellectually superior we are to anarchists.

Nobody should live as animals just because they are unable to work. Depriving them of control over their own lives is reactionary and simply disgusting.

I live in the US, and many people go on SSI after sustaining a back injury or sustaining complications related to obesity. Granted, they are pressured to do so because it pays almost as well as a McJob without requiring any work, but the true solution would simply be to move to where they can actually get jobs

And what did he point out? Another Anarchist similarly considered the phrase reactionary.

I.e. they've both did not read Proudhon, nor have any coherent understanding of Anarchism.

He litterally cited examples of jobs many disabled people could do.

Proudhon is talking about how wages should be equal; he says nothing about people not working or incapable of working. Both of the quotes from St. Simon and Fourier are talking about the same subject, how wages should be paid, which is not related to the question of whether those who don't work should be provided for.

That the quote came from Paul, which it did. Paul happened to live before Proudhon, and furthermore, Proudhon did not say it.
He say no such thing. Regardless, the phrase is reactionary if taken literally, since it implies even those who can't work won't eat.

Proudhon is important to the history of Anarchism but he is not particularly relevant today, since most anarchists are not Mutualists and his critiques and positions they do accept have been said better but those that came later on.
You apparently do not have a coherent understanding of Anarchism if you think most anarchists, who are ancoms, believe in wages at all or in withholding food to those who don't eat. And furthermore, even if Proudhon did say it, which he didn't, that does not mean all anarchists would have to accept it all the same. Anarchists follow ideas, not people, and as such are under no obligation to believe something just because an important anarchist said it.

Stop being such a arrogant sectarian fucker.

forgot to take off my shitposting flag

If you are on SSI, you get $775 per month, which is not even close to a living wage. Not only that, but if you are on SSI, and try to work side jobs, they deduct your income from the SSI. The feds give you a shit amount of money and coerce you into not working. Not only that, but as soon as you get more than $2,000 in assets (excluding one house and one car) they stop giving you SSI. In other words, if you are on SSI, you are forced into abject poverty at every turn. I used to work in a Social Security law office, and after that I worked in homeless shelters. It takes 2+ years for most people to be deemed eligible. In that time, many people become homeless. Even if they look for work while applying for SSI, the job market is so competitive they won't find much. Would you rather hire a recent college graduate desperate for a job, or a middle aged guy with a stump for a leg? Even if they are awarded SSI, they aren't given enough money to pull themselves out of the homeless hole. And on top of all of that, it is way harder to qualify for SSI than Porky makes it out to be. A lot of people who are clearly, visibly disabled do not qualify.

Quit drinking the capitalist Kool-Aid

Do you have any self-reflection?

He explicitly says that if people want to work less, it is perfectly acceptable to pay them less. I.e. argues for specific interpretation of "to each, according to his contribution".

That's oversimplification. The idea (in which the phrase is used) is about reward being equivalent to the labour provided.

For example, Soviet Constitution:

I'm not persuaded.

Yeah. Modern Anarchists perfected the state of perpetual quantum superposition: any assumption about their ideas infallibly means that most have completely different opinion.

If they are under no obligation to support any specific point of view, nobody is under obligation of recognizing them as Anarchists.

My opinion of Lenin is lower after realizing he was quoting Paul the Apostle, who was responsible for interpreting much of Christianity and opening the door to its use as an oppressive institution. I recognize value in some of the content of the Gospels, but Paul was a quasi-fascist who interpreted so hard that he took what was basically a hippie and turned him into an establishment apologist. Of the substantial material Lenin could have quoted to appeal to the Christian context, he picked some of the worst shit available. He didn't even quote Jesus, for Christ's sake.

The fact that you think other people approving of your politics is what matters kind of says it all.

I wasn't being sectarian or arrogant. Keeping the flag on while making a genuine post implies that the flag is a reflection of my beliefs.
He is.
Yes, the logical extreme of "to each according to their contribution" is that those who don't contribute don't receive anything, but that was not the point Proudhon was making, whereas that was explicitly what Lenin was.
He said that in relation to Lenin quoting Paul; he never used or implied the word "reactionary".
That's a genuinely funny joke, but it doesn't imply. Since we're not talking about any idea's fallibility nor is there any reason to believe that any anarchist ITT changed their position based upon you bringing up Proudhon.
That's true, yet there is nothing inherent to the definition of Anarchism that implies anarchists must follow the beliefs of important anarchists. Anarchist tendencies are named after beliefs and not people for a reason.

It's not exactly a free ride because they're also treated abhorrently, but the criteria for claiming ESA (Disability income support) in the UK are heavily skewed towards physical disability and away from shit like autism and mental illness.
Though even there you have absolutely fucking risible shit like if you faint once a month, you barely get any points, whereas to get the maximum it must be weekly.
sense.org.uk/get-support/information-and-advice/welfare-benefits/esa/esa-descriptors/

I'll truncate the post here before I start ranting about what a kafkaesque nightmare arises from using a fucking points matrix (and perverse financial/employment incentives) to decide who does and who doesn't get money. The worst part is, you need a note from an actual doctor to start the process meaning an actual doctor has agreed you're not fit for work, but you still have to go through this bullshit.

draw a line at the actual infirm

I know plenty of reddit socialists that can extoll a laundry list of "mental illnesses" that also hold steady full time jobs, more than they'd ever work in communism

ah yes because all mental illness is the same.
*Experiences an involuntary episode of lost or altered consciousness resulting in significantly disrupted awareness or concentration at least once a week*

I'm quite certain the concept much is older than Paul the Apostle. And, as I've already pointed out, the idea existed for a long time in Socialism - which is a very strange thing not to be aware of.

Except you are keeping flag on while making dishonest posts - misrepresenting positions that are different from yours. But if - for you - different positions do not even warrant a discussion, does this not mean much more xenophobic approach than the one you ascribe to me?

Please, prove this.

And he did not recognize the concept.

The joke's on you. I was pointing out that it's possible to claim anything about modern Anarchists - given their vaguely amorphic state, it is nigh impossible to prove or disprove anything about their beliefs.

They must follow some specific set of ideas to be identified as somebody.

Correction: no longer named. The reason being that after Bakuninism and Proudhonism went off the stage, very few Anarchist visionaries managed to get any following: I've found only Makhnovism and Magonism so far. So don't imply some grand freedom tradition here.

Capitalist society views me as worthless. I am a young, "uneducated" male with physical and mental disabilities. After becoming sick, I taught myself how to program because sitting at a computer was the only way I could be productive anymore. The problem is, I don't have an expensive piece of paper saying I know how to program, and I also live in bumfuck nowhere with no way to feasibly get to where the jobs are.
I live on SSI, but I have an ability that is useful to society. I would hope under a communist society I would be seen as an asset instead of a leech and given a relocation and job.
Many, many disabled people are in the same boat. Capitalists don't want to waste a dime catering to the needs of the disabled.

Isn't freelance work and telecommuting huge in computer science right now? Do you have a bitbucket or anything like that?

Seconding the other user, where is your github or bitbucket? Have you tried contributing to open source software? Do you have a portfolio of projects that you can demonstrate to an employer

Just being able to program doesn't cut it. No offense. But I mean the creator of this website was under the exact same circumstances as you and he demonstrably created something of value and proved society wrong.

My thought is that you might not be as good as you say you are - which is completely ok by the way. It just means you need to practice more and get better before someone wants to offer you a job. Freelance web design is a really good place to break into the field without a degree - I would recommend creating a personal website to show off and maybe one or two more sample websites, then solicit local businesses with outdated webpages or people online (be careful as a lot of people online expect you to do valuable software development for peanuts) for work.

and this is the max amount, it's common to get far less than this

It's not misrepresentation if it's obviously satirical.
I've never implied or believed that.
The whole point of this thread was the OP saying "those who don't work, don't eat", and you quoted the Soviet Constitution saying that. I don't know if Lenin said it personally, but your original post was about Lenin being the originator, not that he never said it at all.
The only belief that all anarchists share, and the only one that matters to non-anarchists, is the immediate abolition of the state and capitalism.
And those exist, which is why there are tendencies inside Anarchism; argue about those, not beliefs anarchists never had.
Kropotkin and Malatesta were very influential. Regardless, even now no one calls themselves a Bakuninist or Proudhonist, and I'm not sure if anyone actually did and it wasn't a term applied to others.
Which everyone universally refers to as Platformism.

This is what acting in bad faith looks like. They believe work should be done, but they still believe hours should be decreased and work should be automated. It is bad faith to believe he wanted everyone to work forever like a slave.

tbh it's still reactionary if it wants those incapable of any work to starve.
someone has to stand up for coma vegetables.

If you are the one doing the outsourcing. Freelancers are exploited even more than the proper proletariat. There is like a gazillion of Indians/Ukrainians who also want to freelance - and not trade union to keep things in check. One of the jokes is how it is makes no sense hiring high-end IT companies to do anything - they'll just use third-world coders anyway.

That said, it is possible to get good pay, but it requires working on some real project in a team.

No, it's not obvious. Many people are still freaking out over possibility that someone is a bona fide Communist (but it was debunked!!!11). Talking about the Planning of 1930s is flat-out impossible. And then there is you who literally conditions hordes of degenerate retards to spam threads with their "anti-tankie" bullshit - and then wonders why the fuck I am not being always polite.

But you acted on it.

Except I was asking to prove that he actually meant starving non-working people to death.

As you said that was the point Lenin was making:

I most certainly expect someone to say (probably, in another thread) that this is not the case and that most modern Anarchists akshually support transition state.

Survivor bias. Both lost to Marx.

I think Proudhonists did, but their speeches are hard to find. Either way, that's how this begins. Yesterday Chomskyism was derogatory, today it is occasionally derogatory, and tomorrow - if this crypto-AnCap somehow manages to spark a noticeable movement - there will be crowds of unironical Chomskyists.

Still got a page on 1984-pedia. Anarchist do get tendencies named after people.

Like a very old people, they are of course required to put in less or none at all depending on how severe their disability is. I don't get where you got that belief from that Marx (or Lenin or Stalin or anybody) wanted them to starve to death. There is a broad consensus on the left about this and there always has been, the only disagreements are about the degree of granting these exceptions. Can one just say they are depressed and be excempted without even an interview with a psychologist? And issues like that.

It was never common for Anarchists to plaster the mugs of some thinkers everywhere. I think this difference has more to do with the servile Christian personalities that are frankly common among the non-Anarchist left. inb4 "Chinese Marxists aren't Christian!!"

They never had the opportunity, did they?

Well, they aren't. Nor are Best Koreans. And it's really a stretch to call Bolsheviks Christian. Your statement has no basis.

21st century is here, time to choose

Read Critique of the Gotha Program:

This is really basic stuff, why the fuck haven't half of you cunts read this, and why are you contradicting marx by referencing an out of context quote by fucking lenin, who was quoting that renown marxist St Paul (LOL). Seriously, if people would actually read basic marxist texts we wouldn't have to have shitty threads like this every fucking day.

We don't need to divide the labor around more efficiently since there are too many makework jobs as there are. Socialism is about the abolition of work, and we have to recognize the fact that most people don't actually need to work. Unless of course you have a reactionary boomer idea of fairness where "because I ate shit it means everyone else has to".

They never had the opportunity, did they?
They didn't have much opportunity to build gigantic statues. But they did have opportunities, and do have them now, to put faces on stickers, their magazines, on pins, and to name organizations or themselves individually as followers of certain leaders. Does an Anarchist teen who reads Goldman not have a picture on the wall with her face because of lack of opportunity? Success or popularity isn't really an explanation for how Marxist-Leninist-X-ists act, the faces and the names are not just Lenin or Stalin, obscure Marxist groups also use the names and faces of their obscure leaders, next to Marx and Lenin.

And you can keep anecdotal counter-examples to the above firmly in your rectum. Nobody who isn't a sophist drinking his own Kool-Aid will deny that this fundamental difference in approaching thinkers is common between the Anarchists and Marxists. And anybody who isn't high on Jenkem is repulsed by the sycophancy and necrophilia of Marx fans. If Marx were brought back to life, he would get a heart-attack from all that cringey kitsch.

Marx did actually say that and Lenin repeated it.

Except you're both confused about what was said. This doesn't apply during higher stage communism but lower stage communism.

Also it's obvious that the state will take care of invalids and the old. Are you guys all retarded or something?

To clarify:

and see:

"to each according to his need"