Socialism which funds leisure at a level such that one has a genuine choice of having a full-time job, a part-time job, or no job at all, is the only salvation as I see it. Socialism which has people working because they like to work and not because they wish to amass wealth, is the only salvation as I see it. Absurd?

No, inevitable! When machines first started to take over the hard, the dirty, the repetitive and tedious jobs the die was cast. Society has been drifting towards a work-for-enjoyment status ever since the industrial revolution.

aklink

Sort of Brian but right at the moment Oz is close to full employment. There will always be people who don't want to work or can't work. Need to look after the latter. I'd say we're entering a 40 year period where older workers nearing retirement will be enticed to work part time to top up savings and younger people's labour will be in high demand.

Alfred,

I think Mr Holden is having a lend of us.

If by socialism you mean that people who do not want to work, don't get paid, that's fine with me :) As someone once said, 'he who does not work, neither shall he eat.'

Yes, there may be a few Benjamin Brandysnaps out there, while the other guys sit up in their tree-house, but in real life they don't last long. I beavered away on a vegetable garden at an Aboriginal community for a couple of years, before I realised that I was just a mug.

The strange thing about so many people on welfare is that they don't feel they ever have to reciprocate - the feeling seems to be that if you can do it, and they can't, then you should keep on doing it, and they will - by virture of their lifelong, terribly oppressed condition - never owe you a thing. Because they can't, you see :)

I guess the history of collective farms in the USSR and China is also a pretty salutory lesson for the Benjamin Brandysnaps of the world.

A very wise man named Tony Ryan once wrote that, in community development practice, if people can do something for themselves, you never do it for them. Never. I'd certainly second that.

It's also called 'self-determination'.

Cheers,

Joe

Good points, although I bristle at the endorsement of "socialism", as I do with any other "ism" for that matter.

However I think it would be fair to require that all of us who benefit from society should contribute to it - equitably. This requires an agreement to be reached about contributions that society would value, and accountability for the contribution made.

We already have this mechanism for accountability and the recognition of community work in Centrelink benefits for the unemployed and mutual obligations agreement, but its terms are currently too restrictive (except for over 55's) to accommodate your ideas.

There is a campaign to broaden the opportunity and extend it to all ages which you might like to consider. (View forum - Employment | myregion: http://bit.ly/npPdMg) The pros and cons of reform are being addressed there.

Interesting article - based partly on the premises of genuine or 'pure' communism as imagined by Marx in the Communist Manifesto.

Problem is without mutual disarmament worldwide there will still be pressure to maintain arms budgets.

And while for some personal growth and altruism will be enough to enter into professions such as teaching and medicine - others will reasonably expect material reward... SO there must be a level of differentiation... And these areas of the social wage will still need to be paid for somehow...

The answer would be a mix of incentives - but with flexibility for workers to trade off consumption for free time; and support for the use of this free time - including funnily enough through voluntary work. ie: Marx's idea of work 'becoming life's prime want'. That's what we can reasonably achieve right not.

We're getting closer to the point where Marx's interpretation of communism becomes possible on a large scale; but we're not there yet.

No Brian, that is by far the absolute worst idea I have ever heard in my entire life.

NOBODY wants to work to support strangers who are simply too lazy to do any work themselves- the French had a revolution against a nobility elite that did precisely that very same thing (scabbed off workers and did nothing).

Not only would this system NOT work simply because nobody would want to be the appointed molochs to uphold the luxuries of a lazy self-absorbed society denied to themselves; is the fact that this idea is not even an idea- but a manifestation of selfish ego-centrism and self-entitlement, that conveniently blames capitalism, evil businesspeople or some other external threat whose fault it is rather than yours that other people aren't generously making sacrifices for your benefit.

A better idea is to emulate Mediterranean European countries that are actually more realistic about workloads and cut the working day to drastically shorter lengths, or implementing extended break periods.
THAT would be more realistic, and mean that people who DO work, are not worked to exhaustion.

As usual, I agree with King Hazza. In fact, as a long-time Socialist, I always thought that socialism meant that EVERYBODY worked equally, nobody was over- or under-exploited, everybody who was able-bodied pitched in and contributed to the overall well-being of society. In that sense, I imagined that under socialism, everyone would be a proletarian, or at least there would be nobody with any more privileges than the average worker. Everybody would have their eight hours of sleep, eight hours of work and eight hours of play, fishing or reading or playing their tin flute, whatever.

Of course, my socialism was for an imaginary society, one that has never existed, and I suspect now, never will.

So Tristan, I've been racking my brains to think of who in the world socialism is coming closer for. Somalis ? Chinese ? English lumpens ? Nope, you've got me there :)

Joe

I doubt if there are many full time leisure seekers without a credible excuse. Voluntary work takes a host of peoples time, that are someway involved with welfare. Fire fighters, and hospital volunteers. People with slight mental illness, that industry will not employ, are good volunteers. Some have two personalities, and not employable according to industry. All very valuable to the voluntary sector.

Joe; I mean for the advanced industrial world. But China is making leaps and bounds with industrialisation.

The problem for the West, though, is that the rise of China, India, Brazil - will lead to the rise of 'new competitors'. So there will be more competitors fighting over a finite world market. Living standards may rise with new technology; but the exploitation by existing Western advanced industrial ecoomies of 'peripheral' economies in the world economic system will be limited as several new economic 'centres' compete for influence and market share. As development continues is the Third World - that is, if it continues - such peripheral economies may not accept the same intense exploitation of their labour. (eg: with the sourcing of raw materials for computer parts from Africa) And China may offer them 'a better deal'...

Our hope is that technology shall improve to such an extent that living standards will improve regardless; and that mechanation and automation will progress to the degree where inroads will be made - and there will be more scope for recreation and self-realisation - regardless of these trends.

I'm no raving red commo, but I agree really.

I work now, and I never really care who is bludging off the system. Doesn't annoy me in the slightest. Couldn't care less. I work because I choose to, and if they don't good on them I say. Even if they get my tax money, until I can get the same standard of living by not working, and the same incentive not to just sit around and get drunk or high every day, I wont swap places. I don't begrudge anyone spunging off me.

I would also like to not work for periods of time and get money from the government if this could be arranged in such a way I was happy with my standard of living. I would happily be one of the non-workers, though I'd probably pick something casually up if I got too bored.

What always amazes me is that there is always this argument put forward that everyone would not work, and the workers would get sick of paying for others. Rubbish I say. Those people who run businesses and work their asses off love work. They really do, and more importantly they want to be rich. It wouldnt matter if they were the only one working, if there was a sniff of having a little more than the average joe by working, they will continue to do so.

You could create a massive welfare state and tax the bejesus out of the rich, and as long as it was done globally, the rich would still work their asses off, and the rung below would still want to be marginally richer than the average Joe.

So, if you could just make the worker types get the chip off their shoulder and get off their high horse and accept they are choosing to work, and that they could easily swap places with the non-workers but they don't WANT to as they're greedy and vain and want the status and nice things, it would all work.

But people love to complain about dole bludgers.

It's not only the ancient Greek culture, Mr Holden. The modern Greeks are having some problems with work and leisure and where they are, we do not wish to be.

Quite so Loudmouth;
The irony of this discussion is that most self-labelled Communist countries have no welfare system at all outside government-funded materials, and definitely no dole (most forbid begging too).
Which makes the notion of a justified 'leisure class' all the more utopian and baloney.

And ironically, it is actually anti-equality (This is for Houellebecq); the only thing that motivates work for most as of now is the fact that the 'leisure class' are rightly considered stigmatized dole-bludgers to which most feel is a parasitic low to stoop to, who live well below most salary and security brackets most people would feel comfortable with- hence, they find another way to make money by working.
Of course, disability pensioners (including psychologically) are quite justified in living from welfare;
Everybody who is simply too lazy only deserves the bare minimum that their human rights warrant that society can spare.
And elevating these people to a 'honorable' class with a presumably more generous subsidy is most definitely not something any sane person would endorse- as for one it is definitely the most anti-equality measure imaginable.

And it is far "greedier" to sponge off somebody else because one simply can't be bothered, than to work for your own money- regardless of how much more it is.

Brian Holden

For some unknown reasons your daddy did not tell you that Imperial-Classical-Greece had slaves who supplied goods and services and left to masters the free time to pose questions about the nature of what surrounded them.

Was your daddy telling you the full truth by omitting to make you note that the time-to-think of the Master-Greeks was stolen from their slaves?

Probably your daddy was trapped by the dogmas of our history books and had no eyes for the inhabitants of this land, Australia, where in times, preceding the so called Greek civilization, without the help of slaves, had not questioned, but embraced nature with all its plants and animals as their Goddess.

The Aborigines, as we newcomers call them, had thought of many devices, some far more daring then the ones we knew at the time in which Europeans stole their sacred soil.

And, notably, they never thought of money.

They must have perceived that the only valid currency of every living entity, is TIME.

Hi Skeptic,

You write, "Aborigines .... had thought of many devices, some far more daring then the ones we knew at the time in which Europeans stole their sacred soil."

Fifteen thousand years ago, all of our ancestors, yours and mine, were hunter-gatherers. They hunted food day after day, and they (i.e. the women) gathered food day after day. They had to put a hell of a lot of effort into that, just to survive from one day to the next. They may not have perceived all of that effort as work, but they certainly didn't sit around all day.

"Aborigines .... had thought of many devices .... " ? Of course, like hunter-gatherers everywhere, they had to cope with their environments with all of the ingenuity they could muster.

But if you know of "many devices", let us know.

Over tens of thousands of years, they, everywhere, would have developed intricate perceptions of how it all worked, but not necessarily accurate ones: with limited technology, and limited means to develop their technology, no matter how ingeniously, their (our) understanding of everything around them would have been rudimentary - whether in Stone Age Scotland, India or Australia.

All over the world, hunter-gatherers (us) - and later, the early pastoralists - would have over- or mis-used their environment, eventually exterminating most of the large mammals, deforesting their country and impoverishing the soil, everywhere. Everywhere: Iran, North Africa, the Yucatan Peninsula, the Deccan, central Australia.

Hunter-gatherers did not live in some form of 'primitive communism'. They did not have, could not have had, superior knowledge of the world. They were as intelligent as we are, but did not have the benefits of a bitter knowledge of history, nor of the hard-won technologies to avoid environmental damage. We were them, they were us, in a much cruder, more ignorant, time.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

Joe

One consequence of sitting around all day, not ever working, nothing to work towards, nothing to look forward to, is that people start getting on each others' nerves. As well, the moral fabric starts to break down, since nothing is all that urgent or crucial or salient, especially if people feel that they are being excluded from the actual world. Abuse and violence tends to follow and this article, on New Democracy, is a harbinger of what happens next:

http://www.opendemocracy.net/tani-adams/chronic-violence-new-normal-in-latin-america?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzEmail&utm_content=201210&utm_campaign=0

It's not all sweetness and light, doing nothing. For a short time, of course it is (that's called 'holidays'), but forever ? With nothing to really work towards ? You might as well be in prison.

Joe

Not even with a comment!

I'll go along with this as long as the paying of taxes to support those who choose not to work is also a real choice. Holly can pay them, he's apparently happy to do so. I'm not so keen on doing so.

If I'm exchanging time that could be spend more enjoyably doing other things for the sake of the money to support those other things then I'd rather keep more of the money.

I like working but I've not yet found a way to combine the types of work I enjoy and a good income so I do work that I enjoy at times but would not do if it did not make a substantial difference to my income.

I suspect the idea that some should be able to live of the efforts of others is a big part of why so many don't have the balance we'd like to have. It's not just consumerism but the amount of money we get taxed when we do work (or spend) which goes to support the choices of others.

I've made this point previously, I think our tax system could be restructured around time rather than income. Potentially we could all have a tax obligation of one working day a week (picking a number) to society either in cash or community work. What you do with the rest is your own business.

R0bert

Some interesting point raised. I can agree with Houe's ideas, in that the most fortunate people are those who really enjoy what they do; it's ridiculous to suggest, for instance, that the likes of Tiger Woods would stop playing golf if he couldn't make millions of dollars out of it.
While our Qantas pilots are on ridiculously high wages and demanding more, domestic pilots in the USA are working for less money than many truck drivers. They love to fly. Equally, Australian small farmers have to be in it for the life style. God knows there's no money in it.
On the other hand, I agree with Robert's point. I don't believe anyone should get a free lunch, that someone else has to pay for. Surely it isn't too much to ask of the unemployed to do some voluntary work, one or two days a week?
My favourite solution is free education. With so many over 50's out of work or under employed (self included) I see no reason why schools could not be open 16 hours a day, with people sharing their skills and knowledge.
Unemployment benefits could be paid on a hourly rate; the more hours spent increasing knowledge and skills, the more benefit paid. Community service could be an alternative for those who don't like learning.
Such schools could be where our 'leisure class' hangs out, doing all that 'cultural stuff'; intriguing our younger generations with benefit of our experience and wisdom.
That' d be a hoot.

I agree with R0bert; if working is a 'choice' so is subsidizing the people who don't work. And skeptic is right in pointing out that societies that had 'leisure classes' only obtained these by slaves or impoverished peasant classes who had no choice but to work- and were forced to subsidize a class of elites.

I've re-read the article and I've noticed that the tone is that consumerist capitalism is the 'problem' and justified-dole-bludging is an 'answer';
So let me understand this correctly- I am required to relinquish my right to relentlessly shop away and buy things that I like, for the 'joy' of having some lazy prick sponge off me?
The strange thing is, I'm actually pro-tax-to-welfare (hospitals, injecting rooms, roads, schools, dentists, public transport, pensions, disability pensions, and services that society needs);

But this article reeks of the typical selfish couldn't-care-less attitude that (conveniently assumes) people who take responsibility and pass up opportunities to screw around, do so because they sincerely enjoy giving up their time to work, don't want to have fun, and probably don't mind if I weigh down on their personal sacrifices to help myself to them.

re: a 'leisure class'; Marx actually talks about the 'leisure class' resting on slavery in 'The German Ideology'. In modern time, the capitalist class is 'the leisure class'. But the mission of socialism was to extend opportunities for leisure to the working class. That aim still remains; and reducing working hours and providing for cultural engagement - everything form liberal education to sports recreation - is 'part of the picture'. Most early Marxists held work to be a duty - because economies had not yet reached the point where everyone could enjoy open-ended leisure. We're still not there - but we are closer... And as much as is practical we should enact "From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs". In today's 'real world' this should mean lower working hours, earlier retirement, more holidays...

I don't know that Brian's got the right answer, but the question certainly needs to be asked: why do we all work so bloody much?

Primitive hunter-gatherer tribes had working hours about half of ours, with a fraction of the technology we currently enjoy. And yet we pat ourselves on the back for having a 40-hour working week. In this nation of proud bludgers, surely we can figure out some way to do things that sees us all enjoying a lot more leisure time.

I've never read Marx, but I have read Thomas More's 'Utopia', which contains some distinctly socialist ideas. Well worth a read (just ignore the bits about slavery and capital punishment and stuff).

PS: Vote 1 the Three-Day Weekend Party!

The amount of work time comes down to lifestyles, take the indig; culture, all you had to do was feed your self, the rest of time was all yours. So what's different today, unless you live under a bridge you have a mortgage, there's 30 years. A couple of new cars along the way. There's another 6 years. Kids school and occasional holiday to keep the peace. there's another 15 years. Thats 51 years, then you can retire and enjoy life like an indig;

Rizla,

Hunters may have spent less time hunting, but I'll bet women, the gatherers, spent a hell of a lot more time, picking, digging, grinding, keeping the fire going, keeping an eye on the kids (women's work, after all). And since 60-80 % of the food was gathered by women, and even small game caught by the women, you're right, it must have been a life of Riley for the blokes.

Have you ever thought, in your admiration for such a simple, satisfying life-style, of trying it ? Say in Tasmania in Winter, or at Oodnadatta in Summer ? That would be quite a learning experience, I would be interested in your informed judgment after a few months :)

RObert, yes, your idea of voluntary taxation donations to support those who do not want to work (or study) might be the way to go. So those who work eight hours a day could, if they liked, chip in an hour's pay per day for the benefit of the work- and study-shy. Think of it as their Last Hour, each day, finishing work at five instead of four, the proceeds going to the guy in the park conversing with Pastor Flagon. Now that's community spirit !

Grim, yes, that sounds fantastic ! I've thought for a while that pretty much all unemployment benefits should be foregone in favour of study grants. The catch would be that people can't keep studying at the same level, or the same actual course, as happens in TAFE Certificate I and II for many Aboriginal people, especially in the remote areas: you get one year's payments to finish a one year's course, then you can go on to the next level of course, and so on. Ideally, many lower-level TAFE courses should be preparing people eventually for either trade-training or university.

But of course, if able-bodied people don't want to either work or study, they should be free to live on fresh air, pick the daisies and listen to the birds. No obligations for them, no obligations for society. Win-win.

Joe

Joe,

On a quick search, the only figures I could find which broke down primitive working hours on the basis of gender had the women doing 40.1 hours a week and the men 44.5 - comparable to our working week, but less than the total spent on work and housework.

I am not suggesting for a second that we give up the wonders of modern civilisation and revert to a primitive hunter-gather existence. Idiot hippies who accept the concept of the noble savage might think this is a good idea, but I hate hippies somewhat more than Eric Cartman.

If it takes 5 hunter-gatherers with crude shovels 2 hours to dig a hole, how long does it take one man with industrial earth-moving equipment? Those primitive hunter-gatherers - with a fraction of the technology we enjoy - only had to work 40-odd hours a week, if that, to get by. But we, with all our wonderful machines, have to work more than them just to get by. How the devil does that work? I put it to you that it doesn't work, and that the system is broken.

Rizla,

As a bear of little brain, I'm not sure of your point. We pay taxes to support a large bureaucracy and welfare population, which hunter-gatherers, with their 40-year life-span, didn't have to do. We pay rent or rates for our homes, shelters from the weather, places of eating and sleeping, and of leisure, which gatherer-hunters didn't have to worry about, around their camp-fires on a Winter's night.

I'm not sure of your figures: I've seen other figures somewhere which suggest that women put far more hours in. At the other extreme, Marshall Sahlins once wrote that gatherer-hunters only had to work three hours a day to get all the food they wanted. This may have been so in some exceptionally productive parts of Australia, the lower Murray, western Victoria, and areas like those would have accounted for a large proportion of the entire Aboriginal population. In those areas, women seemed to do a lot less of the total work: there was so much food around, ducks, shellfish, Murray cod, bettongs, swans, wallabies, that even the men could feed themselves. But even there, it wasn't all beer and skittles.

Well, it wasn't either beer or skittles, I guess.

Joe