>>5653
Different anon here. They're not entertaining you because your questions seem absurd and baity and honestly seem obvious to anyone who's slightly familiar with Marxism. It also requires far more effort to answer questions that you're asking than it takes to ask them. I'll go ahead against my better judgment as a gesture of good faith.

People are already lazy and don't work under capitalism. Have you ever worked in an office? Those dingy buildings are filled to the brim with people who do *maybe* 2-3 hours of actual work in a whole day. Factors like reciprocity with your community and social obligation are much more motivating than simply having to do the absolute bare minimum to not be fired.

A lot, if not most by this point, of work in the first world is completely pointless and only serves to continue an endless cycle of capital. Advertising jobs, data analysts, accountants, office clerks, schedulers, managers, salesmen, etc. Believe it or not, the vast majority of jobs aren't actually needed. The fact that there is an "unemployment problem" is indicative of this. Despite mass unemployment striking the US every few years, the world has always continued to spin and only takes a hit if there is a mass strike by people whose jobs actually matter. The fact that there are so many people unemployed yet society still functions as normal should be a GOOD thing but instead is considered bad—Why? Because people need money from a job to survive. Thus tons of "bullshit jobs" are created.

>but what if someone is perfectly able to work and simply refuses to
Well, what happens to those people under capitalism, a system in which you have to work to get money to get food to survive? They get assistance from friends, family, neighbors—the community.