Those who cannot work?

[u/Outrageous_Big_9136]

I'm fairly new to Socialist thought, but if everyone is contributing what they can... how are those taken care of who are of retirement age or are too disabled to work?

[u/AutoModerator]

IMPORTANT: PLEASE READ BEFORE PARTICIPATING.

This subreddit is not for questioning the basics of socialism but a place to LEARN. There are numerous debate subreddits if your objective is not to learn.

You are expected to familiarize yourself with the rules on the sidebar before commenting. This includes, but is not limited to:

• Short or non-constructive answers will be deleted without explanation. Please only answer if you know your stuff. Speculation has no place on this sub. Outright false information will be removed immediately.

• No liberalism or sectarianism. Stay constructive and don't bash other socialist tendencies!

• No bigotry or hate speech of any kind - it will be met with immediate bans.

Help us keep the subreddit informative and helpful by reporting posts that break our rules.

If you have a particular area of expertise (e.g. political economy, feminist theory), please assign yourself a flair describing said area. Flairs may be removed at any time by moderators if answers don't meet the standards of said expertise.

Thank you!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/linuxluser]

This is something all productive modes have to deal with, not just socialism.

All societies have people who are classified as non-workers. The sick, the disabled, the elderly, children, etc. These people exist in society and have social ties with others in society who are workers. Those social ties bind the whole of society together, workers and non-workers.

This, inevitably, means that the workers must produce more than what they themselves consume. Whatever the mode of production is, it depends on the society unpinning it to exist and continue to exist. Thus, all modes of production requires the workers to produce enough for both workers and non-workers in society so that the society can reproduce itself, thus, reproducing the conditions necessary for the mode of production itself.

Marx calls the amount of labor done in excess to what the workers require, the surplus of production. Thus, the non-workers subsist off of the surplus of labor.

Under capitalism, however, there's one class of individuals who are non-workers who takes an extraordinary amount of the surplus for themselves that far excedes what they require to exist: the bourgeoisie. In fact, the bourgeoisie will actively take surplus away from those other groups (sick, children, elderly, etc) and even cut into the portion that workers produce for themselves. They are actively cutting away at every form of value in society and undermining the very conditions that make their own existence possible.

So the best way to think about what this all might look like under a new, socialist society is simply to realize that once we cut out the leeches (the bourgeoisie), we will find an incredible amount of surplus we didn't realize existed before because it was being horded. This surplus would be put to use to rebuild society from the ills that remain due to the capitalist mode.

As socialism develops, it will utilize automation better and, thus, fewer and fewer workers will be needed to reproduce society. Socialism does not depend upon profits, so it can sustain itself easily all while diminishing the number of people that must work. Capitalism cannot do this because its profits depend on the value produced by labor. Diminishing the number of workers under capitalism actually devalues their profits and causes economic crisis within the capitalist system.

Socialism is, therefore, the solution to the problems of labor and automation that capitalism is incapable of fixing.

[u/Outrageous_Big_9136 → u/linuxluser]

Thank you so much for this extremely thorough response. You definitely helped me understand, I appreciate you!

[u/linuxluser → u/Outrageous_Big_9136]

Yes. I think it's best to take the morality aspects out of the problem first. Understanding the issues of workers vs non-workers from purely a labor perspective helps clarify the problem better, I think.

If we start with moral problems in the analysis instead, we will get trapped and confused in our thinking. We'll be left with having to figure out who is worthy and who is unworthy to receive the products of labor in society. That's not a road we should go down. Within a capitalist society, this thinking leads people to fascism.

It's a scarcity mindset, where the products of labor are seen as scarce resources that we need to be careful who gets it and who doesn't. This leads to people inventing reasons to not give some groups things or to over-give other groups things. It really plays on the human condition and leads to division.

This is what Marx and Engels set out to completely avoid in there formulation of what they called "scientific socialism" in the 19th century. Their point was that instead of approaching these problems as idealists (morality is an idealist framing), we should ground everything in something more objective. In the case of scientific socialism, that objective ground is materialism.

So scientific socialism became also known as material dialectics which later got shortened to the single term Marxism (which Marx himself did not appreciate).

EDIT: Material dialectics was first, actually, and then Marx and Engels tried to call it scientific socialism to differentiate it from, essentially, anarchist tendencies within socialism at the time. But the order isn't important, the point is that these are (mostly) synonymous terms.

If you are new to this thinking, I encourage you to read Socialism: Utopian and Scientific by Engels. It clarifies all of these things very well and helps us today orient our thinking correctly about problems like "What about people who can't work?".

[u/Jdobalina → u/linuxluser]

Please post as much as you can (within reason of course lol). Concise, clear answers like this help a lot of new folks understand concepts a lot easier! Kind regards.

[u/PM_ME_DPRK_CANDIDS]

In China, if you are too disabled to work you receive a Disability Allowance 残疾人津贴. There is an additional subsidy if you need a nurse to care for you. There are also subsidies for disabled people who can work in limited capacity.

If you retire as an urban worker there is a pension every worker and business must pay into "Basic Pension Insurance" 城镇职工基本养老保险

If you retire as a rural worker, the government provides a minimum pension, and you may voluntarily pay into this pension to increase benefits.

The guaranteed benefits pension plan is the best solution to retirement in a money economy - it is the gold standard for unions in capitalist states and for everyone in socialist states.

[u/Hopeful_Vervain]

I think most people, even disabled folks, would like to "do something", humans don't especially like boredom. Right now, I hear stories from disabled people who get welfare benefits and they'd actually wish they could work part time (according to their abilities), but they would actually have less revenue if they did so, so they're basically forced to do nothing if they don't want to live under worse conditions. Under socialism/communism, people would be able to do as much as they can without being forced into anything (not idleness nor overworking), and their needs would be taken care of, which is possible through post-scarcity production and automation, but even in the lower phase of communism (socialism) I think we'd still do our best to fulfill everyone's needs as much as we can.

[u/LeftyInTraining]

They are supported as best as the society can. Depending on how developed the society is, they may be able to assist more or less. During lower stage socialism, society is able to support an ideal of "from each according to their ability, to each according to their work." Society may not have the ability to support those who cannot work as much as we would like, but, for example, early USSR had laws about supporting those who couldnt work. 

But when society has developed to higher stage socialism, society is able to support an ideal of "from each according to their work, to each according to their need." At this point, society has more than enough resources to support those unable to work, including supporting accommodations allowing them to engage in work or society as much as they desire.

[u/mklinger23]

There's no set model. It's basically just an idea. Everyone gets their needs met and everyone does what they can. So if you can't work, you will receive housing and food. It can be a straight payment or perhaps something like "the projects" where there are dedicated housing units owned by the government where you would live. And for food, you could either do something like food stamps or have dedicated markets where all the food is free. Perhaps you have to scan a card or something that verifies you are entitled to it. It's all up to the specific government to decide how it should be handled.

[u/TinyEmergencyCake → u/[deleted]]

The same community that currently blocks allowing sufficient housing units from being built? Or are we getting new people?

[u/silverking12345]

Imho, everyone, including the disabled, are provided the opportunity to be productive in some way. Truth is, the vast majority of disabled individuals are capable of some productive work, it's just that circumstantial factors (location, current wealth level, etc) limit their options.

Ideally, a socialist system would provide the necessary resources and assistance necessary for these individuals to be productive. Maybe move them somewhere with suitable jobs, provide necessary equipment to work from home, or an education allowing them to excel in academia (more academics is a nett good for the world).

Even in cases of people being entirely unable to work, people with major cognitive disabilities or suffer from total disability, I think society would just take up the responsibility of caring for them regardless. There really aren't that many of them and realistically, some amount of surplus can be allocated to them without too much trouble/issues.

[u/Outrageous_Big_9136 → u/silverking12345]

I was thinking about those truly unable to work (very disabled, elderly, etc). Also, do we work till we're dead or do people "retire"?

[u/eveinterface → u/Outrageous_Big_9136]

There is this idea that in socialist society “ppl who don’t work don’t get to eat” and I don’t get where it came from because each and every somewhat successful socialist government provided pensions for sick and elderly

[u/silverking12345 → u/Outrageous_Big_9136]

I don't see why retirement can't exist. Or better, shorter work hours for all. Rather than 9-5, 5-days a week, maybe we can do half day shifts or a 4-day work week.

Truth is, we don't have a shortage of workers and productivity potential. In fact, we have a gigantic surplus that's heavily mismanaged under capitalism. Tons of abled bodied people languishing in bullshit jobs and inefficient work.

If we all worked in well planned, efficiently managed jobs, we can all cut down work hours and still maintain productivity levels. Maybe people can be allowed to retire earlier.

The only issue is declining birthrates which can lead to population decline. If not enough young people are replacing older people, then the older population will essentially be forced to work harder to make up the difference.

That's already happening right now and it's not looking great. Nevertheless, in a socialist system, people will be more free to have children without worrying about financial insecurity so at the end of the day, it's still better to go that route than sticking with the current capitalist world order.

[u/SilentDis]

To each according to their needs
From each according to their means

The individual is paramount. It does not matter what you give back - we all want all of us to have a roof over our heads, 3 healthy meals a day, and a safe bed to rest.

There is no exclusion from the above. It is absolute, and the failure for one is the failure of all as a collective.

That doesn't mean 'throw it out' - that means learn.

How did we fail? What 'crack' did this comrade fall through? What can we do to make sure no one else is in there, and that 'crack' is sealed for all time?

We must all learn to judge our society and government by how the lowest of us are treated.

As for the individual themselves:

I tried and failed to come back to work after a major infection 3 times. I was just so bored I couldn't deal with it, but at the same time I couldn't get work done because I was in too much damned pain. It was maddening.

I'm 100% sure that - because of our current broken, failed society - most of us could sleep for a month, shuffling to the toilet to relief, kitchen for food, then right back to bed. That fact alone should scream to you that there's something deeply broken and failed about the world we live in.

We produce enough for ~10 billion people to eat, and housing stock is either at- or above-demand everywhere. The problem is how much of it is tied up in 'investment property' and the whole 'short term rental market' (think AirBnB and such). We can solve the logistics challenge of moving that food around if we want to. The only reason we don't is because it is far more profitable to let people starve, and let people live unhomed.

People aren't lazy. Sure, you'll get the one or two that try to scam the system, maybe even one or two that succeed. Nowhere near as many as we have right now (the rich).

The retired gave what they had, and they earned their rest. The disabled will find work in their time, in their own way. They will find me supporting them and cheering them every step of the way.

Another aspect of all this is that we absolutely need to slow down. I mean it. We don't need 20,000 funko pops today by noon. We don't need 30,000 sneakers with lights in them. We don't need 50,000 framed "Live Laugh Love" posters.

We have the modern infrastructure such that we can know how many of these things we need, and stop. You don't need more made 'just in case'. I'm not even saying "don't have funko pops" or "don't have sneakers with lights in them" or "don't have a live laugh love poster" - I'm saying you don't need it immediately. Give it a week, if you still want it, put in an order, and get it in a week or two. It was made because you asked for it at that moment, and we didn't have a billion of them sitting in a warehouse somewhere waiting to ship the other 19,999 to a landfill.

The huge drop this would mean in work required would be amazing. We may just hit the fabled 4-day/20-hour week with such a system. Maybe even less.

So, the need to even have every able-bodied person working is moot. There's just not honestly enough to do. We'd all switch to small, local stuff - like taking care of our community, being with them, and maybe finding out that disabled person - that wasn't useful to capitalism - has a wonderfully sweet voice, singing in the park, while you lie under the giant trees, twisting dandelions into crowns.

[u/Trddles]

All Systems take from the Workers using their Taxes to do whatever the Systems ideology wants

[u/TinyEmergencyCake]

We die. 

Charity doesn't work as a dependable model. We survive only because right now government has to provide subsistence. 

The underfunded dilapidated "projects" we have now will be completely unfunded, and anything new built will be even more segregated than it was built before. 

People in the comments still want me to prove that I'm poor enough and sufficiently unable to work in order to receive food and shelter. 

We have an excellent taxation mechanism. We could literally provide universal income to all without means testing and just tax it back on the high end. 

[u/linuxluser → u/TinyEmergencyCake]

You are referring to what is happening under capitalism, where to the state has to "fill in the gaps" that the private sector is unwilling to do. And because the state is run mostly for the interests of the owner class, there is a conflict of interests within it. So the state will cut back on benefits it once thought important due to changing political conditions.

Under socialism, we aim to abolish private propoerty and, thus, private interests within society, for this very reason. Private property is always at odds with society and at war with it. Abolishing private property is about eliminating this form of violence within society and making it so that is is, once again, in everybody's interest to have a healthy society.

This not only increases funding the public programs but increases the quality of these programs substantially. Instead of the "means testing" approach of capitalist programs — where individuals have to prove they are in need constantly — it is taken as a given that if someone is in need, they are entitled to the resources they lack.

You can watch an example of China's approach to poverty, for example, and how it lifted 850 million people out of poverty (something no capitalist nation has ever done): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVY6GUAOPj4

EDIT: And here's a video from Luna Oi that explains the land reforms that Vietnam did as their process of eliminating private property post-revolution: https://youtu.be/vneV-ATS1XE. It's very instructive on how quickly and radically society can improve when private interests are abolished.