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.