Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, there would be no force to control you. Furthermore the basic needs (housing, food, etc.) living in a community will be provided to guarantee your survival, except in cases of over population for something like housing in a town.
Also work is a very general term. If you live in the woods and pick fruit to survive, that act is still labor.
How are basic needs provided to you? What incentive is there to work then?
How are basic needs provided to you? What incentive is there to work then?
Basic needs= food, shelter, and water. If all these things are met than enhancements to these things would the next step.
The incentive reason I already covered in a previous post. Because of free labor, production would be based on community need. Say a community is lacking production in a base need. People will naturally go work at the subsequent union to help boost production. Now say a base need was being met, but not to your personal standard. In that case you could work at a union (were the main production load would naturally be less due to less demand) were excess production would go to yourself.
I think I went more in-depth in another post a few pages back on incentive and the desire of people to work given the right environment.
Work is the root of all human societies, it is what maintain human life and organized communities, functions, etc.
As for human rights, etc. many of these principles are covered by Marxist principles. Humans have a right to usage of that which is not under the control of others. There is much more beyond that but you get the idea.
A lot of people, especially near the bottom work because of fear of being homeless and hungry. They hate working. When I was in retail management many years ago I would ask applicants why they wanted to work for me. Often it was because I need a job to pay the bills.
It creates a lot of stress in peoples lives but also as a society overall we benefit who have to work or else. The or else is evictions, car repossessions, etc.
Now if you are saying many peoples basic needs are covered what if they just decide not to show up for work. What would happen to them?
Basic needs= food, shelter, and water. If all these things are met than enhancements to these things would the next step.
The incentive reason I already covered in a previous post. Because of free labor, production would be based on community need. Say a community is lacking production in a base need. People will naturally go work at the subsequent union to help boost production. Now say a base need was being met, but not to your personal standard. In that case you could work at a union (were the main production load would naturally be less due to less demand) were excess production would go to yourself.
I think I went more in-depth in another post a few pages back on incentive and the desire of people to work given the right environment.
These are non-answers.
I'll ask again, how do basic needs get to a non-worker? Especially one that refuses to work? And if everyone refuses to work?
Basic needs= food, shelter, and water. If all these things are met than enhancements to these things would the next step.
The incentive reason I already covered in a previous post. Because of free labor, production would be based on community need. Say a community is lacking production in a base need. People will naturally go work at the subsequent union to help boost production. Now say a base need was being met, but not to your personal standard. In that case you could work at a union (were the main production load would naturally be less due to less demand) were excess production would go to yourself.
I think I went more in-depth in another post a few pages back on incentive and the desire of people to work given the right environment.
I believe that at least 30 to 40% of people would simply not show up to work if they had their basic needs met no matter what.
Political Cuba is authoritarian where the government sets the work agenda (not the workers), and controls what type of labor is available to who. There also authoritarian so the invest lots of resources into keeping power.
That’s why I’m an anarchist. If you want to look at forms where socialism works look at revolutionary Catalonia (anarcho-syndicalism).
Ps. Putin is not a socialist, he is part of the oligarchs that took control in the 90s.
You mean where it "worked" for all of 3 years before it's collapse?
A lot of people, especially near the bottom work because of fear of being homeless and hungry. They hate working. When I was in retail management many years ago I would ask applicants why they wanted to work for me. Often it was because I need a job to pay the bills.
It creates a lot of stress in peoples lives but also as a society overall we benefit who have to work or else. The or else is evictions, car repossessions, etc.
Now if you are saying many peoples basic needs are covered what if they just decide not to show up for work. What would happen to them?
When people are forced to work to survive, they despise it. Furthermore in a capitalist system labor is very much controlled and restricted. Working when the fear of starvation, homelessness, etc. is not a factor, is a very different situation.
Also the basis of working For yourself rather than working for others changes the dynamics in many different fashions.
I'll ask again, how do basic needs get to a non-worker? Especially one that refuses to work? And if everyone refuses to work?
People "naturally going to work" isn't an answer.
There are different functions of retrieving basic needs. If there is no house to settle and you don’t want to/can’t build one yourself, filing in a demand or working for the union directly can get you one. Food produced on farms can either be distributed directly or retrieved in some market form where an excess taking of food would be checked.
If people refuse to work than there needs won’t be met. If the majority of a town refuse to work, the production capacity won’t meet demand (as work hours are agreed upon and not necessarily increased just by the increase in demand).
Furthermore if bare minimums are not met, the people most like to produce in the union are those who are the ones suffering due to the shortage in production and would be the ones most incentives to work.
Obviously if you had a town of 60% cripples, then that town won’t be able to survive. That is naturally and would no longer survive and would have to be dispersed, or have increased migration.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
