>You cannot abolish the link between work and economic security, because economic security itself derives from work. If no one works, there is no economic security - that is a simple fact of existence. Our demand as anarchists is that we want to tear down the state, and force the ruling class to work for their living, stripped of thier power over the means of production (and distribution).
Their power is entirely derived from the fact that they can force others to work for them. In saying that you want to "force the ruling class to work", you appear to be saying that someone else (Anarchists?) should have that power, rather than the existing ruling class. Wouldn't that make whoever was giving those orders the new ruling class? And wouldn't those who had to take the orders be the new working class?
But worst of all, what you seem to believe is that a society in which former bosses are reduced to slavery, is an improvement on a society where only the working class are slaves. I assume you would apply the doctrine that the ruling class be forced to work to everyone else too of course, in a spirit of egalitarianism.
But, even conceptually, a society in which everyone is a slave is impossible. A slave requires a master. Who would be the masters in your society and if you imagine there would be no masters, then who in God's name is going to "force the ruling class to work"?
In my conception, an egalitarian society would be one where everyone was free and no-one was a slave. You hold to the opposite view, that everyone should be a slave. Frankly, this is not a very attractive proposition. Not a "brave new world" that many people would be keen to fight for. Even if it wasn't logically impossible to start with.
>In terms of anarchist communities... there is still the requirement that people work, however the requirement and means of work is determined both by the individual and by the needs and egalitarian social functions of the community in which that individual resides.
I would appreciate an explanation of the mechanism by which this "requirement" that all who eat would be required to work would operate. Obviously there must be exceptions, so there would need to be a way of deciding what those exceptions would be, as well as a system of policing the requirements and the exceptions. So, if you'll pardon my sarcasm, would you mind explaining how that would be done in a way which was consistent with "anarchist" principles? I'm quite sure there is no way you see, an anarchist" society based on the principle of "work or starve" would be fairly much exactly the same as the existing society. probably a lot worse.
><i>
>Greens in Australia and Europe (Britain anyhow, can't say about the continent, but I would assume so) have a guaranteed income as a plank of their election policy. The need isn't even all that controversial, among progressives. Socialists need to catch up.
></i>
>
>You're passing this off as "progressive", but really this is just an extension of the welfare state, which has its fundamental roots in the opression of the working class. Guaranteeing a basic subsistance level income for the working class of an advanced industrialised nation neither emancipates the working class of that nation, nor does it help the working class of less industrialized countries that don't have such extensive welfare states. As anarchists we seek to abolish the welfare state, not work.
But that's just it, a universal and unconditional basic income would emancipate the working class from your "work or starve" dictate. It is completely at odds with the philosophy and practice of the welfare state, as it has been practiced for the last 400 years. Work or starve has always been the central tenet of the welfare state. Think the "workhouse", the "work test", "workfare", etc. etc.
Whether such a radical change is actually practical under capitalism is another question entirely though. It would certainly make for a very inefficient capitalism, if bosses had to beg and grovel to get people to work for them, or worse, pay their workers what the workers think they are worth.
S perhaps the Greens haven't thought it through very well, or just don't quite grasp how the economy works. But they do instinctively grasp what is right and what is materially possible and necessary in a world where there is no reason that people should starve except for the need that some people exercise power over others who face economic insecurity.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas