6 ms·

If you have a social safety net so that the unemployed can live somewhere and eat, under this definition do they count as unemployed? And a second point, in my

If you have a social safety net so that the unemployed can live somewhere and eat, under this definition do they count as unemployed? And a second point, in my home country the government introduced rules where to have government benefits you have to work a little, painting your community, cutting grass in public places etc. People on the left were outraged. How dare you give work to people on a government mandate, and tie unemployment benefits to it? Yet that is precisely what Stalin just argued for there. A government can create full employment by creating jobs and forcing people to work. Why don't modern socialists support that?

zokier 5y ago
If you need to work to get money, it is no more benefit, it is employment. And with employment should come all the benefits of employment, meaning vacation days, insurances, proper wage (>minimum wage), etc.
- Sankozi 5y ago
  "you have to work a little" It can easily be benefit for example if you work 1/8 time for 1/2 of pay.
mantas 5y ago
... and it was illegal to not work in USSR.... The modern socialists who expect to have plenty of time for themselves in their dream regime would be so disappointed.
- refurb 5y ago
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitism_(social_offense) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitism_(social_offense) In the Soviet Union, which declared itself a workers' state, every adult able-bodied person was expected to work until official retirement. Thus unemployment was officially and theoretically eliminated. Those who refused to work, study or serve in another way risked being criminally charged with social parasitism
  - nopenopenopeno 5y ago
    In other words, rent-seekers in the USSR were called what they are (parasites) and they received the same treatment that the US gives to it’s unemployed and homeless, except the US maintains an economic system that guarantees an unemployed and homeless population. If you think you’re making the USSR appear less reasonable than the US, maybe think again.
    - thodin 5y ago
      It was difficult to be rentier in USSR because it was officially forbidden to "own" even 2 apartments at the same time.
      - nopenopenopeno 5y ago
        Sounds like a great law.
    - yazantapuz 5y ago
      > rent-seekers in the USSR were called what they are (parasites) So, if I plan to live from rents that i earn from my past work i am a parasite?
      - nopenopenopeno 5y ago
        Rent is attained by controlling access to capital that you own, according to the state. Wages are attained by selling your labor to someone else. Which is it?
        yazantapuz 5y ago
        I have earned a certain capital selling my labour. That capital is now working for me (some rent, bounds, etc). Why you think that someone doing these is a parasite?
        nopenopenopeno 5y ago
- Shin-- 5y ago
  A collectivistic society expects everyone to do their part to reach a good standard of living for everyone. 8 hours/day, as was common, to rebuild destroyed countries and economy is less than countless people in capitalist nations have to work today. The biggest difference is, is that this amount of labour is necessary for their own survival, that there is no collective sense, without authorities trying to reward them in some ways to keep them happy, or even showing any appreciation for the work they do. Socialists don't say that socialism would suddenly lead to less work for everyone, a revolution and rebuilding after a revolution is a lot of hard work, but the work is done for the collective good, not to make a few even richer. It shall have meaning and be valued by society. And yes, eventually - even Marx talked about it already - work that is not necessary and labour that can be automated will become more free time for everyone.
  - yucky 5y ago
    >a revolution is a lot of hard work, but the work is done for the collective good, not to make a few even richer. Does this ever happen in reality though?
    - krapp 5y ago
      No. I think every revolution serves the interests of the elites. Even the American Revolution was essentially a tax evasion scheme by the wealthy merchant class.
CapitalistCartr 5y ago
During the Great Depression, the USA had the Civilian Conservation Corps, which made jobs for people, and got a lot of good stuff done. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_Conservation_Corps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_Conservation_Corps
ARandumGuy 5y ago
First off, Stalin is not the be all end all of socialist thought. In fact a lot (most?) people who call themselves socialist these days don't even like Stalin. Even if he was well liked, one can support someone's broader ideas without supporting every single individual position. It's not a contradiction to say "I like [person]'s ideas, except [specific idea], which is dumb." Secondly, tying unemployment benefits to community service is a blunt tool, that can directly hurt those trying to get unemployment. Some people need more time to find a job or improve their own skills, and spending time mowing the lawn may be counterproductive to that. Some people can work, but they may have disabilities that prevent them from doing whatever community service jobs are available. And finally, some people just can't work at all, and they shouldn't have to go through hoops to prove that to receive the benefits they need to live. Finally, many on the left (including myself) reject the notion that living necessities should be tied to employment at all. Everyone should have access to food, shelter, clothing, and healthcare, regardless of their employment status. This includes people who can work, but choose not to. Work should not be a requirement to live a comfortable life.
- yazantapuz 5y ago
  > Work should not be a requirement to live a comfortable life. _Someone else_ will we working to give you a comfortable life.
  - mensetmanusman 5y ago
    This will be true for all of us at some point in our lives (usually at the extremities). We should embrace the notion of paying it forward.
  - mcv 5y ago
    > _Someone else_ will we working to give you a comfortable life. Robots, preferably. We're not there yet, but it would be a nice goal. And certainly a lot better than having robots do all the work but the fruits of their work going only to the rich who own them.
    - 5y ago
nopenopenopeno 5y ago
> A government can create full employment by creating jobs and forcing people to work. Why don't modern socialists support that? I am myself a politically active Marxist and we do say this, but we also understand that this isn’t going to happen. Keynesianism was not a sustainable solution. It only bought time. Ultimately states in capitalist societies are in service of capital. In the US, realize the 1970s financial overhaul, including the Bretton Woods System, was the capitalist response to the New Deal giving workers too much power. 1960s inflation hit the ruling class and they responded by brutalizing the economy. See: https://wtfhappenedin1971.com https://wtfhappenedin1971.com
VictorPath 5y ago
> People on the left were outraged. How dare you give work to people on a government mandate The heirs who expropriate surplus labor time from those of us who work and create wealth are the ones who not work. Their wealth is from government mandate - the government was created by them to do this and enforce it. When are they to work?

zokier 5y ago

If you need to work to get money, it is no more benefit, it is employment. And with employment should come all the benefits of employment, meaning vacation days, insurances, proper wage (>minimum wage), etc.

Sankozi 5y ago
"you have to work a little" It can easily be benefit for example if you work 1/8 time for 1/2 of pay.

mantas 5y ago

... and it was illegal to not work in USSR.... The modern socialists who expect to have plenty of time for themselves in their dream regime would be so disappointed.

refurb 5y ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitism_(social_offense) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitism_(social_offense) In the Soviet Union, which declared itself a workers' state, every adult able-bodied person was expected to work until official retirement. Thus unemployment was officially and theoretically eliminated. Those who refused to work, study or serve in another way risked being criminally charged with social parasitism
- nopenopenopeno 5y ago
  In other words, rent-seekers in the USSR were called what they are (parasites) and they received the same treatment that the US gives to it’s unemployed and homeless, except the US maintains an economic system that guarantees an unemployed and homeless population. If you think you’re making the USSR appear less reasonable than the US, maybe think again.
  - thodin 5y ago
    It was difficult to be rentier in USSR because it was officially forbidden to "own" even 2 apartments at the same time.
    - nopenopenopeno 5y ago
      Sounds like a great law.
  - yazantapuz 5y ago
    > rent-seekers in the USSR were called what they are (parasites) So, if I plan to live from rents that i earn from my past work i am a parasite?
    - nopenopenopeno 5y ago
      Rent is attained by controlling access to capital that you own, according to the state. Wages are attained by selling your labor to someone else. Which is it?
      - yazantapuz 5y ago
        I have earned a certain capital selling my labour. That capital is now working for me (some rent, bounds, etc). Why you think that someone doing these is a parasite?
        nopenopenopeno 5y ago
Shin-- 5y ago
A collectivistic society expects everyone to do their part to reach a good standard of living for everyone. 8 hours/day, as was common, to rebuild destroyed countries and economy is less than countless people in capitalist nations have to work today. The biggest difference is, is that this amount of labour is necessary for their own survival, that there is no collective sense, without authorities trying to reward them in some ways to keep them happy, or even showing any appreciation for the work they do. Socialists don't say that socialism would suddenly lead to less work for everyone, a revolution and rebuilding after a revolution is a lot of hard work, but the work is done for the collective good, not to make a few even richer. It shall have meaning and be valued by society. And yes, eventually - even Marx talked about it already - work that is not necessary and labour that can be automated will become more free time for everyone.
- yucky 5y ago
  >a revolution is a lot of hard work, but the work is done for the collective good, not to make a few even richer. Does this ever happen in reality though?
  - krapp 5y ago
    No. I think every revolution serves the interests of the elites. Even the American Revolution was essentially a tax evasion scheme by the wealthy merchant class.

CapitalistCartr 5y ago

During the Great Depression, the USA had the Civilian Conservation Corps, which made jobs for people, and got a lot of good stuff done. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_Conservation_Corps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_Conservation_Corps

ARandumGuy 5y ago

First off, Stalin is not the be all end all of socialist thought. In fact a lot (most?) people who call themselves socialist these days don't even like Stalin. Even if he was well liked, one can support someone's broader ideas without supporting every single individual position. It's not a contradiction to say "I like [person]'s ideas, except [specific idea], which is dumb." Secondly, tying unemployment benefits to community service is a blunt tool, that can directly hurt those trying to get unemployment. Some people need more time to find a job or improve their own skills, and spending time mowing the lawn may be counterproductive to that. Some people can work, but they may have disabilities that prevent them from doing whatever community service jobs are available. And finally, some people just can't work at all, and they shouldn't have to go through hoops to prove that to receive the benefits they need to live. Finally, many on the left (including myself) reject the notion that living necessities should be tied to employment at all. Everyone should have access to food, shelter, clothing, and healthcare, regardless of their employment status. This includes people who can work, but choose not to. Work should not be a requirement to live a comfortable life.

yazantapuz 5y ago
> Work should not be a requirement to live a comfortable life. _Someone else_ will we working to give you a comfortable life.
- mensetmanusman 5y ago
  This will be true for all of us at some point in our lives (usually at the extremities). We should embrace the notion of paying it forward.
- mcv 5y ago
  > _Someone else_ will we working to give you a comfortable life. Robots, preferably. We're not there yet, but it would be a nice goal. And certainly a lot better than having robots do all the work but the fruits of their work going only to the rich who own them.
  - 5y ago

nopenopenopeno 5y ago

> A government can create full employment by creating jobs and forcing people to work. Why don't modern socialists support that? I am myself a politically active Marxist and we do say this, but we also understand that this isn’t going to happen. Keynesianism was not a sustainable solution. It only bought time. Ultimately states in capitalist societies are in service of capital. In the US, realize the 1970s financial overhaul, including the Bretton Woods System, was the capitalist response to the New Deal giving workers too much power. 1960s inflation hit the ruling class and they responded by brutalizing the economy. See: https://wtfhappenedin1971.com https://wtfhappenedin1971.com

VictorPath 5y ago

> People on the left were outraged. How dare you give work to people on a government mandate The heirs who expropriate surplus labor time from those of us who work and create wealth are the ones who not work. Their wealth is from government mandate - the government was created by them to do this and enforce it. When are they to work?