I'm 12 and what is this?

I KNOW HOW MY FILTHY MUTANT ABILITIES UPSET YOU, SCHMIDT. DON’T WORRY–

–YOU WILL DIE PURE. NO MAGNETISM 

Let’s talk about prairie, history, and language. For communities so focused on “native plants”/”native gardening”/etc there’s so little acknowledgement or engagement with indigenous Americans and their history. 

Netflix has renewed ‘Dear White People’ for a second season

1. Marx anticipated precisely that – and he argued that communism would eliminate most necessary work, thus freeing people up to participate in activities and labor they actually enjoy doing. People who want to build stuff for themselves or others, do acts of service, grow food, etc., would be free to do so; they just wouldn’t be compelled to work with the threat of starvation as under capitalism. The original argument you’re making is a Really Bad One™, I’m sorry – you’re basically saying that scant necessary labor in society is a bad thing because it’ll make people lazy and for some reason they won’t want to do the things they enjoy doing? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

2. I wouldn’t really be able to give you a super in-depth answer on how a socialist/communist society would deal with high-stress situations. A delegate system of deferred responsibility in most avenues of social life could still be feasibly used to tackle high-stress situations. But emergency measures would most likely vary across communities and regions, similar to how they already vary under capitalism. (Your question definitely has an anti-democratic vibe to it, but at least you acknowledge that socialism/communism is democracy to its logical conclusion, rather than some other reactionary McCarthite narrative.)

3. True, not everything can be automated. But assuming that “some people will work while others don’t” is kind of a faulty premise to start at. Moving towards communism would probably result in a kind of “divvying-up” of work overall. Like, say, a town hall would post jobs that need to be done in communities over the course of a given week, and people would alternate and do them. You wouldn’t be defined by a single career in most cases. (Tying into Point 1, people would start to be largely defined by their passions and individualized traits.) (Research and medical and things of that ilk would require more commitment, but automation could still ease the burdens for people entering those fields.) With democratized automation, people end up with super short shifts when the work is divvied up. Some will inevitably end up working more than others, sure, but if the argument is that socialism will lead to a class of toiling workers and a class of non-working layabouts, then you should probably know that we already have that under capitalism – in the form of the all-producing working class and the parasitic ruling class, respectively. We declare wellbeing for all, and then communities can divvy up their work as they see fit.

the people in grenfell died because their landlord chose to spend money on flammable cladding because rich tenants in nearby penthouses didn’t like the ugly council building ruining their view. 

the people in grenfell died because their landlord chose not to spend money on a centralised fire system or sprinklers or an additional fire escape. 

the people in grenfell died because the tories voted against a law that would force landlords to make their buildings inhabitable and safe for their tenants. 

the people in grenfell died because of the privatisation of social housing.