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.