Should people who are able to work, have to work?

[Puzzledtraveller]

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need

My knowledge of Marx is cursory at best but the above statement heralded by Marx but not attributed to him appears to be popular among many self identified Marxist. I wanted to know more about what Marx thought about the idea and found the following. My problem with the idea has always been that people should not have to work if they do not want to, it's that simple, for me. So I am struggling to understand why we would ever support such a system, at least the portion of "each according to his ability". As Marx himself appeared to understand that this would be applicable at some point in time in which work isn't the four letter word it is now to many. That being physical drudgery. I don't know about you but I do not see a time in the near future when work will not be physical, demanding, demeaning, repetitive and joyless as it can be to so many.

Personally I find the idea dangerous to progressivism, am I just understanding it wrong?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_according_to_his_need#Debates_on_the_idea

Marx delineated the specific conditions under which such a creed would be applicable—a society where technology and social organization had substantially eliminated the need for physical labor in the production of things, where "labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want".[11] Marx explained his belief that, in such a society, each person would be motivated to work for the good of society despite the absence of a social mechanism compelling them to work, because work would have become a pleasurable and creative activity. Marx intended the initial part of his slogan, "from each according to his ability" to suggest not merely that each person should work as hard as they can, but that each person should best develop their particular talents

[NYC_SKP]

1. Impossible under current circumstances

But always makes for an interesting discussion.

[broiles]

2. Yes, let's start with Romney and W.

[conservaphobe]

3. If ample work is provided and workers are provided a living wage, yes.

I don't think there's many people out there who just don't want to do anything.

I think there's a lot of people out there, including myself, who don't want to do the abusive and degrading work that comes with unlivable wage jobs.

There's many jobs I'm capable of doing and would be happy to do, if provided.

In an economy that provided work like that for everyone, there'd be no excuse for an able person to sit at home... but in this economy that is a totally irrelevant expectation.

[woo me with science]

4. ...

[Puzzledtraveller]

5. Damn, thank you!

Thought I was on the fringe with how I see it, well, maybe it is the fringe, but I'm staying put.

[hunter]

10. R. Buckminster Fuller is correct.

We have the ability to get rid of all the shitty menial mind-destroying work, the ability to retire all the abusive bosses, and all the rotten cops.

The protestant "work ethic" needs to be killed dead and buried with all the other toxic crap of this society.

What we proudly call "economic productivity" is a direct measure of the damage we do to earth's environment and our own humanity.

Everyone needs to step back and chill out.

A twenty or thirty hour workweek, long vacations, early retirements with good pensions, free education throughout life, a minimum wage that supports a comfortable standard or living, a national single payer health care plan, and a very generous welfare system would be a good place to start.

[laundry_queen]

14. +1 nt

[TexasTowelie]

27. ^^^Ding, ding, ding! Correct answer.^^^

[leftstreet]

17. +1

[BainsBane]

22. We already have that. It's called capitalism

Only it's only a few who are supported by the many. But of course the perpetually self-entitled believe they should be able to sit back while the peons labor to support them. No wonder some speak so favorably of Rand Paul. He supports the idea that the rich should pay not taxes, have no regulation, and be entirely untethered in their exploitation of labor.

I have seen right-wingers joke about shit like this. but I have never encountered people who actually strove to do and be absolutely nothing.

[MindPilot]

29. "One in ten thousand...supporting all the rest."

And with that, Fuller predicted the contemporary IT worker.

[CAG]

6. We have a system already where a small portion of the population doesn't work, primarily because of

disability, disease state, etc. A smaller portion doesn't work but only because the labor market is currently not on their side (competing against 50 people for each job, etc). A MUCH smaller portion doesn't work because they would rather sit on the couch and play Xbox. HOWEVER, the propagandists on the right constantly want the bulk of the working population to think that there are a huge number of these Xbox couchers than there actually are, to fan the flames against the lower socioeconomic classes, and more importantly, keep the taxes of the rich low and their power high.

Could you imagine what would happen if their lying propaganda became reality?? There would be such a backlash against the left, whether its due to the left's policies or not, that you wouldn't see a democratic president for 25 years.

The bottom line is, an effective society need people working, period. And by working, I don't necessarily mean someone getting a paycheck each week; a parent staying home taking care of kids is work!! An opposite opinion is not grounded in reality. The negative drudgery that you repeatedly mention is foreign to many people, particularly in many countries in Europe that have very progressive vacation, sick leave, maternity/paternity leave policies.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

7. Provide the jobs, and a lot more people will happily work.

Despite what RWers think, most people who aren't working aren't simply 'lazy'.

[Matrosov]

8. Then wouldn't the entire system unravel?

I have always thought of fFrom each according to his ability, to each according to his need" as a sort of contract between the people.

If you have the ability to work, then you should contribute to the rest of society in the best way that you can. In return for your contribution, the rest of society provides you to have your needs met.

The doctor works to keep people healthy. The farmer works to feed people. The tailor works to clothe people. The carpenter works to provide people with shelter.

In return, the ones I just mentioned don't have to worry about their health, their food, their clothes, and their homes, because society provides them with these things.

If someone has the ability to work but does not wish to contribute, they don't have the greater good of society in mind. They are being selfish, and this kind of behavior would lead to the unraveling of the whole system.

[kelly1mm]

9. There are thousands of people early retireing (in 30's-40's) due to the ACA and 401k

plans. My wife retired this past June after 22 years as a teacher (she is 46). I will retire next April (I am in the tax field) at 44. Some of said upon hearing of our retirement and especially our plan to use ACA subsidies to pay for health care that we had a duty to work, even though we have more than enough assets and after tax investments to last way past our pensions kicking in and then SS. Heck, even without SS we should be fine.

This has been discussed numerous times in early retirement forums. If interested, I would recommend Mr. Money Mustache for 'regular' early retirement tips and if you want to go hardcore (like 7 years from $0 to retired) then check out early retirement extreme.

No financial interest in either of them by the way. Just helped me to formulate a plan.

[Puzzledtraveller]

15. That's interesting

I am currently at training for work, Adult Medicaid. I'm a caseworker. Our instructor today talked about early planning and how important it really is.

[CTyankee]

39. I think you are doing society a FAVOR by retiring early, thereby giving some younger

workers a chance. You are certainly no "drag" on the economy, you planned well, and are hurting nobody. I had to wait until I was 65 to retire from full time work and supplemented by taking a part time job with a nonprofit that I was volunteering with at the time. It was only 15 hours a week and very rewarding. That lasted until I had a serious illness that required extensive hospitalization and inpatient rehabilitation and a 4 month recovery period at home. But I'm fine now (at least from that illness).

So many people "say" they are going to have to work forever, but in reality your body just gives out in various ways. Also, you have age discrimination to deal with. If they want to clear out their higher paid older workers they'll eventually get you out. Who needs the stress?

[ohnoyoudidnt]

11. No.

Our tax system defiinetely needs some adjustments, but no one should be forced to work. If the inheritance tax was 50 percent and an heir paid their tax and doesn't have to work for a living,
then I would have no problem with that.

[liberalmuse]

12. Most people should be paid a living wage.

And they aren't even paid close to what the work they're doing is worth, and that is just the work itself and does not include shitty middle managers and other co-workers who like to throw their power around creating a hostile work environment for their underpaid subordinates.

If corporations and the overpaid and overcompensated CEO's had their way, they'd pay us what they're paying workers overseas, which is pretty much zilch. This has to stop. Most people are willing to work, and work hard, but the right wing like to think that no one works as hard as they do, and that everyone else wants their money which is blatantly false. They would rather pay over $400 a year in taxes to support corporate welfare than $89 a year towards welfare that actually helps people in need.

In the long run, I would like to see us move towards a society where people don't work their asses off for shit wages, and are discouraged from taking their earned vacation, only to retire and drop dead within a couple years, or deplete their retirement funds and pensions paying for excessive health issues related to the many years of stress they had while working.

I'd like to see us move towards a society where corporations and the wealthy didn't pillage the commons for profit, and then hide their money away so they don't have to put anything back into the system that helped create the opportunities for them in the first place.

[CobaltBlue]

13. U.S. policy is 'Greed is good'

U.S. policy on this topic is, "Greed is good" (Wall Street).

The national policy is to have people being obedient workers with a minimum wage that is about 33 percent where it should actually be (adjusted for inflation). And the policy is to keep people appearing to be functional, and debt is to encouraged as the norm. (Had people not had their purchasing access with credit cards, the post-2008 financial meltdown and unemployment would have left people feeling much more a connection on the level of the millions who suffered in the Great Depression.)

The greed is with corporations, et al., never satisfied. There are no boundaries of what they would consider themselves successfully profitable enough. (They want more, more, more!) If one wanted to use some religious connotation, one could look at it as both greed and gluttony. With the U.S. policy propping these corporations (and industries and special interests), what with many not paying (or barely paying) taxes, there is no limit to their cravings.

As for the people of the United States, we are generally overworked. Too much of our time is with active work. And too many active work to the tune of little vacation time, sick pay, pension, and Social Security. It's as if people in this country are going to work until they die (preferably, not on "company time&quot . This is what the U.S. policy pushing more and more greed has reaped.

[Shankapotomus]

16. I think the word "ability"

has enough inherent flexibility embedded within it that people can conclude it doesn't mean to drive themselves beyond their personal capacity to function. Marx obviously understood for each person it would be different.

But I'm not an expert on Marx so...

[Puzzledtraveller]

28. That was one of the issues I have with the idea

Even today there are people who are technically disabled yet under such a system may be quite able to do some work. Based on some definition created to suit the needs of the society. That is where I think we need to be careful, who decides what someones capabilities are? Furthermore, who should have the power to force our guarantee that people deemed capable work just to exist within that society?

[Shankapotomus]

38. Well, there is one factor that could limit

a society's need of work and that is if it is already producing and gathering enough resources to meet its population's demands.

You don't want to over produce or over collect resources because that is potentially damaging to the environment.

So an intelligent and environmentally sound policy for using the planet's resources might also be a deciding factor in determining how many people we want working. If we are an efficient and environmentally conscious society by then, we may discover it takes a small work force to meet our population's needs.

[daredtowork]

18. Bureaucracy and Social Ignorance Gets in the Way of the Ideal

In principal I'd say, yes. But my own experience with disability and the "system" over the last few years gave me a lot of insight into this very question.

The fundamental problem before the Affordable Care Act was the irregularity in inadequacy of medical insurance and medical records. People lost the ability to hold down the job (often through being caught in the stressful vicious cycle of contingent labor) because of increasing medical problems. While the "right" likes to always blame this on "lifestyle", you might also blame this on a few things the Right caused like the pesticides in rural areas that might have caused DNA damage later on in life. But anyway: people got sick, and then the whole "system" is structured in such a way to try to save money and weed out cheaters: so it leaves people on minimal or no resources for years or even longer, when in theory they could be shuffled back into the workforce a lot faster if they had just gotten realistic housing/food support and timely training. Instead they get stuck in bureaucracies where every appointment is spaced a month and a half apart so getting anything done takes a year!

To give you an example: I was doing better because the ACA improved my situation in some respects. I wanted to try some work. But all the appointments I could get in that respect could only be loaded a few weeks out at a time! And in the mean time, when I tried to do contingent-style labor, the Social Services system screwed me over in such an epic way (see my sig), that the stress has actually undermined some of my medication, and I'm starting to wonder if I am work ready.

Another thing to consider along those lines is regularity. Demand for rent and bill payment is regular. The sort of work that can pay those bills often has a regular structure. But sometimes health problems can be extremely unpredictable, involving random attacks. You can be fine one hour, bad the next. Also sometimes people are carrying severe disabilities (blindness, debilitating tumors, etc.) for long amounts of times while they wait in line for low-income treatment, but they don't meet SSI's "length of time" criteria.

The most frustrating question of all for most people who are having trouble getting SSI is gaining acknowledgment of how "vague symptoms" interfere with modern sorts of knowledge labor, as opposed to manual labor. SSI seems very geared toward manual labor issues, whereas people are trying to figure out what to do when they can't work because of pain, fatigue, under-diagnosed mobility issues (say due to some nerve damage problem, or a combination of problems rather than than one clear Diagnostic Code). Despite the TV commercials, not everyone has a lawyer.

The only reason I keep bringing up SSI is it's the only real form of livelihood support left to disabled people - and even that is pathetic at $877 month. On $377/month-direct-to-your-landlord General Assistance Welfare you are too stressed out all the time (and probably becoming more disabled by the minute) to seriously focus on training or doing anything to get back into the mainstream workforce. Besides, how do you afford stuff like transportation, returning all those calls from recruiters who assume everyone has a cellphone, or pay for that hair dye that the well-meaning job coach thought you should invest in? All you can do is hang on by your fingernails until you can get SSI - and then when you can relax, try to get "work ready" if your health makes you employable.

But really I think there should be some sort of bridge program people can get faster than SSI. It's such traumatic experience and such a big investment to get SSI, there's probably quite a bit of momentum to stay on it. Why not just help people stabilize their living situation up front, see if their disabilities can be addressed, and help them get back into the workforce when their crisis is resolved?

One other thing that is complicating the whole matter: the health system does not work well with the social system. One of the chief problems is health appointments and the diagnosis timeline can take even longer than the bureaucratic social programs one! Doesn't it complicate your whole question of whether a person is able to work if doctor's are on a timeline of something like TWO YEARS to get through their "lifestyle speech" first, "watchful waiting" second, then they will only see ONE SYMPTOM AT A TIME, and then they will do hit and miss on referrals, and even after that real diagnoses will only start to role in when the insurance is right. >.>

So in your system is the patient "able to work" in that two year or more lacunae before the medical experts have designated them unable to work? They were still disabled before that - they just didn't have the appropriate label, and the doctors weren't necessarily buying their "vague" symptoms yet. If they were already in "they system", they were probably perceived as mere malingerers and misdiagnosed.

So: I agree, people should work. Life on the dole is a life without purpose. I'd like to see a world where a place was made for everyone, and everyone enthusiastically prepared to contribute something. But I feel it is society who betrayed the individual first here. People are left without a place. They are left without resources. They are driven to homelessness when they are unable to work. There is not much of a welcome mat for their contributions.

[eridani]

19. Given that productivity has improved by a factor of 4 since the end of WW II, no

If one person can make the stuff that took four people to make in 1946, the only way that everyone can work is to drastically cut the standard work week while making all wages liveable.

The economy will remain in depression as long as half of American families are poor or near poor--that means no discretionary income to buy stuff. The 1% has successfully stripped wealth and income from the bottom 90% for 35 years, eliminating a big chunk of their customer base.

[BainsBane]

20. Why wouldn't you work, and who would support you?

Would you live off someone else's labor? There is no point in human history has it been possible for people not to work because they don't feel like it, unless they are wealthy and live off the labor of others. You expect others should work to support you so don't have to?

How is not having the ability to live off the exploitation of others "dangerous to progressivism"? What in progressivism endorses the perpetually idle?

In the past century, work has become less physically demanding, not more. Prior to industrialization, most people worked the land. That was hard back-breaking labor, but they raised food to feed their families. With industry, came hard, factory labor. Deindustrialization has led to fewer jobs in manual labor and more service occupations. The trajectory has been toward less, not more, physically demanding labor.

In Communist societies. Everyone works. In capitalist societies, everyone but the idle rich work. The unemployed strive to find employment, and work damn hard by looking for jobs. Even the physically disabled work, and they want to do so. What they object to his impediments that make access impossible for them. Indolence is not a value under any ideology. It is just plain laziness.

[Boom Sound 416]

23. ...

[Sheldon Cooper]

34. Thanks.

I don't believe in the rest of us supporting able-bodied/minded people who simply don't 'feel' like working.

[hamsterjill]

45. Thank you for saying that.

I agree.

I want help available for those who need it. I want people who are disabled to be able to get help. I want people who are ill to be able to get help, and I want people who have lost jobs to be able to get help until they can find another, comparable job. I respect the work ethic. I've worked myself since I was a teenager.

But I object to people like the ones who live in a house in my neighborhood. Two women with five kids who live in a house with subsidized rent which house is probably in better shape than my own. They are home all day while the three older children are at school, supposedly to care for the two children that are not old enough to attend school. Their Facebook pages indicate that they play games all day. They do not work and do not have independent income. They've admitted that. They get subsidies that I don't even understand HOW they get.

They drive an SUV which would require at least $75 per full tank of gas to drive. And they do drive it a lot. I drive an economy car and consolidate trips to save on gas.

They have allowed their rented home to become a trash pile. They won't get up in time to put the garbage out on trash day because they are too lazy. They don't remember to put it out the night before. So it stacks up in their driveway. They don't care. They are causing an eye sore in an otherwise decent neighborhood. The rest of us pick up the trash from their yard that blows into ours because we care about the neighborhood.

They have big screen televisions and cable, and they come in from shopping with many, many bags of food, including cases of soda. They have tattoos and their children have nice clothes. I do not begrudge anything that the children have because it is NOT their fault.

The women are healthy enough to play in their large, inflated pool in the backyard, running and jumping and screaming and laughing, and they occasionally mow their lawn. There are no physical impairments. Their "excuse" is that they need to be home with their children. Well why can't at least one of them get a job while the other takes care of the children? Or rotate shifts so that both women can work?

Where are the fathers of these children? If these women are receiving assistance, don't the government agencies at least look to the fathers to provide some of the support for the children?

Please don't reprimand me by saying that I may not know what their situation is. I know it. It's clear. They aren't trying to hide it. They are living off of the taxes that hard working Americans pay. They are scamming the system. And yes, it infuriates me.

If that makes me a bad Democrat...then so be it. But I, nor anyone else, should have to be supporting able-bodied adults like this unless they are out, every day without exception, looking for a job. And there is no way, in hell, that these women are looking for anything but a handout.

[Starry Messenger]

40. Thank you for spelling all that out for the OP.

No reply, I note.

[Matrosov]

43. +1 n/t

[Trillo]

21. All the robotized manufacturing,... hmm

Workers are being replaced by machines ... the trend exists.

Here's one dreamer's alternative
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Venus_Project

[Recursion]

24. I dunno. Do you have something that needs to be done that you're willing to pay for?

It's not like there's some stack of widgets we desperately need going unmade, as far as I know.

[AZ Progressive]

25. how can people who work for peanuts feel good about work?

If society made sure that everyone would be paid fairly for the same amount and level of work, as well as ensure that anyone that wanted a job and is able to be a good worker is able to get a job, then there should be an expectation that people should all have to work.

If society treats people like dirt, it should not be expecting everyone to want to give back. Society should heed the golden rule.

[merrily]

26. I have never seen work as a bad word.

We may want to look at what we compensate people for and what we don't compensate them for. We may want to look at exploitation of workers, working conditions, etc. Very often, those things seem dirty to me. But, the word "work?" The concept of work, in the abstract, without connotations of exploitation of workers, unhealthy working conditions, etc? Not a problem for me.

Also not a problem for me if society is re-structured somehow so that NO ONE has to work unless he or she wishes to work.

The only thing I object to is have some people work hard four to seven months a year to provide for someone who is physically, mentally and emotionally able to work but prefers collecting sea shells to hoard (or pick a non-paying activity of your choice). If someone has a need that is not a choice, that is a very different story Being a member of society and taking advantage of all society offers means that you help those people. If you don't like that, find yourself a desert isleand.

[hobbit709]

30. Define work.

[MindPilot]

31. For those of us lucky enough to have jobs,

It seems like we are all doing the work of 15 people.

I think we should start with, "should people who want to work be able to?"

My hunch is there are plenty of people who need no coercion at all to take a job; there is no need to force people to work.

[Quantess]

32. You mean able bodied rich people who have trust funds?

I think it is admirable and honorable for each person to positively contribute to society, in whatever way they can. Yes.

[el_bryanto]

33. I agree - most people are pretty useless and contribute nothing

They shouldn't have to work because being pathetic losers they would just screw things up anyway. It's cruel to expect pathetic losers to contribute anything.

Bryant

[B Calm]

35. I work hard at managing my family fortune.

RETIRED

[VanGoghRocks]

36. Should some people be able to live off the fruits of other people's work? To quote

Big Bill Haywood, "When one man has a dollar he hasn't worked for, some other man is missing a dollar he did work for".

[AngryAmish]

37. Hell no.

Work sucks. I am retiring early. There is golf to be played, donychaknow.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

41. They should do something

(again, assuming that they have the cognitive and physical ability to work)

Either find gainful employment, or, barring that, volunteer for the service of the community.

[lumberjack_jeff]

42. We should all contribute to society in some manner. n/t

[yallerdawg]

44. The "utopian" vision of Howard Zinn (from People's History)

"...We would need - by a coordinated effort of local groups all over the country - to reconstruct the economy for both efficiency and justice, producing in a cooperative way what people need most. We would start on our neighborhoods, our cities, our workplaces. Work of some kind would be needed by everyone, including people now kept out of the work force - children, old people, "handicapped" people. Society could use the enormous energy now idle, the skills and talents now unused. Everyone could share the routine but necessary jobs for a few hours a day, and leave most of the time free for enjoyment, creativity, labors of love, and yet produce enough for an equal and ample distribution of goods. Certain basic things would be abundant enough to be taken out of the money system and be available - free - to everyone: food, housing, health care, education, transportation.

The great problem would be to work out a way of accomplishing this without a centralized bureaucracy, using not the incentives of prison and punishment, but those incentives of cooperation which spring from natural human desires, which in the past have been used by the state in times of war, but also by social movements that gave hints of how people might behave in different conditions. Decisions would be made by small groups of people in their workplaces, their neighborhoods - a network of cooperatives, in communication with one another, a neighborly socialism avoiding the class hierarchies of capitalism and the harsh dictatorships that have taken the name "socialist."

People in time, in friendly communities, might create a new, diversified, nonviolent culture, in which all forms of personal and group expression would be possible. Men and women, black and white, old and young, could then cherish their differences as positive attributes, not as reasons for domination. New values of cooperation and freedom might then show up in the relations of people, the upbringing of children."