Oh, dear. I did it again!

My last comment should have been to Shockadelic, not yuyutsu. Sorry, guys. All your opinions are important to me, regardless of what you call yourselves. :)

calwest,
We were specifically discussing your claim that "The major totalitarian governments were all communist..." so I ask again, unambiguously:
Why don't you regard Nationalist China (under Chiang Kai-shek) as major?
And why are you willing to ignore the minor examples?

Communism has typically included a lot of socialism's features (hence the second S in USSR) butI'm glad that you're now making a distinction between communism and socialism - this is a great improvement from Tuesday when you labelled hard left supporters of the Greens and Labor "communists in spirit" and my views "proto-communist".

But you still seem to have trouble distinguishing between the economic philosophy of communism and the political repression that's needed to impose communism (or indeed any other ~ism) on a population that doesn't want it. Which is slightly strange, as you've already mentioned the communist government in Kerala, India, which was democratically elected.

Now, continuing from yesterday:
Most individuals have neither the ability nor the resources to create their own opportunities. Just taking advantage of existing opportunities is hard enough! Yet because prosperity does depend on taking those opportunities, maximising the availability of those opportunities is in everyone's interest.

People being unwilling to get qualifications or even work at all is, if not entirely imaginary, exceedingly rare. A much more common problem is people being willing but not having the opportunity to do so. Likewise the related problem of people having to settle for doing much lower value work than they're capable of.

Small business owners do indeed create jobs. But penalty rates are far from a disaster - they're a highly desirable protection for vulnerable workers. You seem to have forgotten that lower pay rates are just one solution of many. Another solution is increased mechanisation so that the value of the work done by each worker increases. Another solution is to improve the economy so that more customers are willing to spend more money. Though of course this is beyond the control of individual businesses, it's not beyond the control of the government, and it's something that's taken into account when setting wage awards.

Dear Aidan,

«People being unwilling to get qualifications or even work at all is, if not entirely imaginary, exceedingly rare.»

The only reason it's rare, is that most people cannot afford otherwise.

Why should anyone have to spend their precious life in pleasing a boss; spreading the lies of an organisation; or producing such goods and services that they would never want or believe in themselves? Even those lucky enough to work for themselves get no joy of their work because they drown in a sea of standards and regulations. Regarding qualifications, these are typically about learning to perform a job in someone-else's way.

This doesn't mean that most people would rather remain idle, but most would prefer to severe the vicious link between activities and paying-the-bills.

Killarney seems to be right that this is the commonest experience in capitalism, but is socialism/communism any better? were people there more free to produce/serve according to their own conscience and what they believe to be good and helpful? I think not.

---

Dear Killarney,

Under communism, weren't those who didn't work (even if they could financially afford not to), convicted and jailed as "parasites"? Could people who worked and saved enough decide to retire early or take a long holiday? What about those who wanted to work in providing unapproved goods and services, such as religious ministers or producers of religious artefacts?

Yes, I believe that under communism people paid fewer bills - but what was the quality of the services that they received? They had housing, but they were crowded with neighbours and offered no privacy, the building standards were poor and dangerous and hot-water hardly ever worked. "utilities" did not include a phone and "education" was a synonym for indoctrination (although this is still much also the case in the West).

Yes, the Western debt system is a problem, but this could only happen due to the corrupt collusion of government with big corporations. Still, those who are willing to swim against the stream and do without luxuries are able to extricate themselves from this shameful existence.

No, Aidan, you've caught yourself out:

>"The major totalitarian governments were all communist..."
This form of cherry picking proves nothing. What stops nationalist China from being "major"? And why should the minor ones be ignored? Totalitarianism is totalitarianism whether it's Communist, Anticommunist, Baathist or anything else."

I take your point, but you didn't capitalise "nationalist" and you didn't mention Chiang Kai Shek until a later post.

You're a great one for the glib, unsubstantiated assertion:
"People being unwilling to get qualifications or even work at all is, if not entirely imaginary, exceedingly rare." No, it's not.

So, define "opportunity" and please explain who is responsible for providing such opportunities. Are you saying employers should be creating unproductive jobs for people just to give them "opportunities"?

There are towns up the entire length of the Queensland coast with vacant jobs in areas where unemployment rates are high, yet the local unemployed don't apply for the jobs. Apparently, they'd rather be on the dole. So Europeans on working holidays take the jobs.

Young Irish women acquire a certificate in traffic management in Ireland and come to Australia on 457 visas, working mainly on roads and construction sites. A survey published this week found Irish travellers were the best-paid foreigners on working holidays here.

In any case, what does "not having the opportunity to do so" actually mean? The education system has been dumbed down to a pitiful degree, despite the billions upon billions of dollars spent on schools, TAFE and tertiary education since the mid-1970s. Yet you say that people who have had the advantage of those resources are mysteriously unable to take advantage of the opportunities that other taxpayers have been providing? We'd better start slashing education budgets, then.

calwest

A lot of young Irish female backpackers (as with all backpackers everywhere) will do any job going when they are on a working holiday. A young Irish female student or degree holder will happily work as, say, a nanny or barmaid when she is in Australia. However, when she returns home to Ireland, there is no way that she will work as a nanny or barmaid (unless she is still studying). More often than not, a Polish woman will occupy that role.

Ditto, new migrants will work at anything, but usually until they find their feet and then move on to more rewarding, better paid work. Ditto again, university students.

Those bounteous jobs up and down the Queensland coast that Qld people are not applying for may not be jobs that they want to do or jobs worth taking. Just because someone is unemployed does not mean that they should be stripped of their dignity or right to choose.

No, calwest, stop whinging! Your objection seemed a little far fetched the
first time, but my failure to capitalise the N meant I gave you the benefit of
the doubt. But your repeating it now I've asked it again (being careful to
remove any ambiguity) is blatantly a pathetic attempt to avoid answering the
question!

And I think the reason you're avoiding answering it is because you want to
retain your delusion that communists had a virtual monopoly on totalitarianism.
By avoiding the question, you try to avoid having to admit (or even consider)
how utterly preposterous that claim is.

>Are you saying employers should be creating unproductive jobs for people just
>to give them "opportunities"?
No, I'm saying governments should create economic conditions such that
businesses can take on more people profitably. And also employ more people
directly (as there's no shortage of things that need doing). And also do a lot
more crowdsourcing to create more opportunities for the self employed.

>There are towns up the entire length of the Queensland coast with vacant jobs
>in areas where unemployment rates are high, yet the local unemployed don't
>apply for the jobs. Apparently, they'd rather be on the dole.
But appearances can be deceptive. Has anyone actually asked those people why
they're not applying for those jobs?

>Young Irish women acquire a certificate in traffic management in Ireland and
>come to Australia on 457 visas, working mainly on roads and construction sites.
So the first thing you should ask is: are there opportunities to obtain such
certificates locally?

>In any case, what does "not having the opportunity to do so" actually mean?
It means nobody's willing to employ them. Or in the context of getting
qualifications, it means the courses are not available in their area or there
are other factors preventing them from studying (such as lack of affordable
childcare).

Slashing education budgets would be deeply counterproductive. It's something we
have to invest a to more in, both to take advantage of opportunities and to
create new opportunities.