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.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-10-16 08:58 pm (UTC)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.