During the days I came across an interesting post in the Facebook feed. A girl with a Russian name and a Finnish surname (apparently married) writes: “I met young Finnish relatives, one of whom had just given up a good job. The reason: there is no need to work at all, it is harmful and pointless. A person should not work. "

Further, a Finnish relative says that work has a harmful effect on the psyche and the meaning of life. Because it distracts from the main thing: religion (?), Politics and public life (!).

In addition, work is detrimental to self-esteem. Ben Hunnicut, a professor of nonworking time at Iowa State University (!!) writes that in the United States, "belief in work is crumbling among people in their 20s and 30s." And anthropologist David Graeber calls the work "rubbish" because it is unstable, pointless and socially harmful.

And also “work is unhealthy, stressful and makes it impossible to walk and play sports during the day. Those who work do not have enough time and energy to raise their children and take care of their parents. And most importantly, work is terribly harmful to the environment and has an insanely toxic effect on the warming of the planet. "

And when a girl with a Finnish last name asked her relative: "What about money?" - she replied that “the state is obliged to provide all its citizens with a universal basic income or reduce the hours of work to a few per day. A life without work will be calm, equitable, enjoyable and will provide an opportunity to engage in politics and improve the world. "

Well then. Karl Marx's Critique of the Gotha Program in 1875 is rather difficult to read. Therefore, here is its summary from Wikipedia: “According to the Marxist concept, production should be based on the voluntary use of their abilities by members of society. The results of such labor should be sufficient for the free satisfaction of the needs of all people without the need for any equivalent exchange in the distribution of goods and services. Such a scheme will be possible as a result of the very high labor productivity that will be achieved in a developed communist society. "

Do you understand? We are witnessing the first attempts at the evolutionary transformation of capitalism into communism. Marx and Lenin were right strategically, but deeply wrong tactically: a revolutionary transition to communism is impossible. Simply because society is not yet ready for this. Society should come to the conclusion that it is not necessary to work.

But the factor of the non-necessity of work is only one of the necessary realized factors for the transition to real communism. The second factor (which the Bolsheviks just understood intuitively) is the factor of needs.

When the Soviet school taught me about communism, I was always interested in the simplest question: how to make the principle “to each according to his needs” work? After all, everyone will immediately want so much for themselves that it will be completely incomprehensible where to get it all.

And this was my fundamental mistake. Simply because I was part of that very unprepared society that decided to jump into communism in a revolutionary way. Without realizing the very decay that we were told so much about on TV.

Nature Communications magazine published an article by a team of authors from Australia, Great Britain and Switzerland, in which attention is called the main threat to the existence of mankind! - excessive consumption. And also the pursuit of wealth.

The argumentation in the article is old-fashioned - there the harm of excessive consumption is justified by the same harm to the environment. But here is the summary of the article worthy of attention. The authors argue that it is necessary to "challenge the notion that wealth and those who possess it are an obvious good."

This is how the question of needs is resolved: you just need to convince a society that is ready for anything (even for a “new ethics”, even for a “culture of abolition”) that wealth is an unnecessary burden. Yes, all these young people who do not want to work anymore understand everything themselves. Looking for parents who pay home and car loans. Who are renovating the house and the car. That mow the lawns. Why all this when there is public transport, car sharing, almost free taxis, coworking spaces and coliving rooms?

And then it will go on to those “who have it” - that is, to Bill Gates (it’s as if it’s already reached) and to everyone else.

There is, of course, some conceptual contradiction. The fact is that Bill Gates owes his wealth precisely to the fact that he changed this world. And he brought labor productivity to such a level when it becomes clear to the capitalist Lokhankin that labor is not for him.

And the future, devoid of competition (the main tool for realizing a person's aspiration for enrichment), will inevitably come to the conclusion that labor productivity will fall. Simply because there will be no more new technologies. Where will they come from in a world where everyone is engaged in self-improvement? Who will provide the minimum level of comfort that the “peaceful protesters” will agree to? Apparently Filipino nannies, Indian programmers and Chinese engineers. But they too will one day come to the point that they don't want to work. And I want to swim in the ocean.

And look at how funny it turns out: both the revolutionary and the evolutionary path to communism have, in general, the same final point: they lead to degradation. To a dead end, where there is a dilapidated barn, in which they drink boiling water.

And then the boiling water will cool down.

Because the thermal death of the Universe, alas, is inevitable.

The author's point of view may not coincide with the position of the editorial board.