Socialism

[sparr]

The current "economic crisis" has driven me to reevaluate some of my beliefs, and I thought I would share one of them...

I believe that the idea of "everyone must work" is rapidly becoming obsolete.  We have long since passed a point at which the majority of people [in developed countries] are employed basically making each other happier [supposedly], not actually producing anything.  If half of those people became unemployed, our levels of production, for internal use and export, would not be hurt at all.  There would still be just as much food as there is now, just as many cars being built, etc.  But we [the American population in general] are stuck in a rut of thinking that if there isn't enough work for you then you deserve to starve.  That cannot last forever, and economic slumps like the current one are only going to get worse as demand for the non-production portion of society waxes and wanes even more in the future.

I happen to think that people should not have to work to earn the necessities (food, shelter, clothing, education).  This requires a very unpopular level of taxation of those who do work; unpopular but not impossible (see Sweden, New Zealand, etc).  The alternative is a very unpleasant confrontation between the working class and the unemployed when unemployment reaches 50% or higher, and I think that is inevitable.

Your thoughts are appreciated.

Comments

[beccala.livejournal.com]

Socialism goes against everything I believe in. I don't think there's much more that needs to be added to that :)

[tanglered.livejournal.com]

Any time I do all the work and someone else gets the benefit against my consent, that is slavery. why can't we just employ everyone half as much? If they refuse to work then they don't get to eat.

Also I challenge your assumptions that people service industry employees are not producing anything. Is the medical research industry not producing anything? what about Private insureance workers? Everyproduct is vital. if for no other reason then that it motivates that fraction of the population neccisary to support our society.

Money is a method of keeping a fair score on how much work you do. There is no motivation for your theoretical 50% of the population to work more then enough to support themselves. theoretically they could let the lazy 50% starve and not have to work as hard or only work half a day. What motivates them to exchange their labor for goods and services above what they "need". what motivates them to work harder is luxury. Ice cream, and internet and television, condoms, all of these are luxuries. and bigger and better luxuries are what should employ the other 50% in order to motivate the productive 50%.

I'm sorry but we all know communism does not work, and to a lesser extent socialism shares that failure. it is only allowed to work because it gets to share in the motivational energy of free economies like the united states.

[sparr0.livejournal.com]

Employing everyone half as much is a valid implementation. You still have half the population living off the other half, the level of socialism has not changed.

The problem with your concept of luxury/service production is that when the 50% who are producing necessities (enough to supply everyone) stop buying luxuries (like, say, now), the other 50% start starving. They cannot produce their own necessities, all the available land is already farmed, all the accessible ore mined, etc, all by the first 50%. Most people who are opposed to socialism would be equally opposed to a communistic approach of taking land/mines/etc away from the producers and giving it to the non-producers who need it to live.

[tanglered.livejournal.com]

I don't think we are too that point yet
, perhaps in some dystopian future yes, there will be a time when service industry just cannot exist, but if we collapse that far most people will be dying from whatever trauma befell our world in the first place rather then from starvation because they couldn't sell anyone an ice cream.

have you ever taken macro or micro echonomics in college?

I have. there will always be epople who produce more then they consume, and they will generally trade their excess for some sort of favor or improvement to thier industry or thier living conditions. there will always be a market for secondary goods


you know I could say something awful like, we tried having only 50% of the population employed once but the feminist movement put a stop to that.

[major-kusunagi1.livejournal.com]

But we also live under the work ethic system that if you want money/cars/BIG screen TV/etc/etc, you MUST work. Now there is nothing wrong about going on welfare but if you are you are only entitled to drive the beat up, rusty, 86 Monte Carlo vs a 2008 hybrid Escalade. I am in firm agreement with this system. Not everyone can be Warren Buffet, we need janitors and yes bums too. I personally do not want someone living high on the hog and not do a blessed thing to better themselves. The only way I would be happy with this is if replicators from Star Trek were around. AA still firmly believe that a kid from the ghetto can still be president, but it takes work. Nothing is for free and it should not be for free. Its nice to get things for free but y'no I too would like a pony.

:{)

[sparr0.livejournal.com]

I agree whole-heartedly. In the present economy, an indigent person can be housed, fed, and respectably educated for well under $5k/yr. I am not advocating giving everyone a [current day equivalent] $100k/yr lifestyle. Just the necessities.