What is your view on the welfare system?

[Friedrich]

Do you think that everyone who is unemployed should receive benefits?

In my opinion, only those who actively try to seek work should receive benefits, alongside those who physically or mentally cannot work.

[The Fighting_Crusnik]

For the most part, I agree with you. However, there are people with careers in certain fields that are now just dead. And unfortunately, the majority of these people cannot afford to go back to school so that they can go into another field. And what happens is, is that a lot of these people decide to stop looking and choose to wait for awhile before they begin to work again. But in the case of these people, I think there should be assistance given so that they can go back to school, and general assistance should be given to them even if they choose to wait for a little bit before looking again.

[Amphictyonis]

Do you think that everyone who is unemployed should receive benefits?

In my opinion, only those who actively try to seek work should receive benefits, alongside those who physically or mentally cannot work.

Bullocks. Capitalism at all times creates a perpetual unemployment rate of about 3% to 5%. Welfare and prison is what the capitalist state uses to control the 'reserve army of labor'.

I say so long as capitalism exists let their bourgeois state pay all unemployed workers ten times as much and without question. Fuck them :) The ones 'looking for work' are the people capitalists use to keep the ones with work working harder and faster. It's all intertwined with the end result being exponential exploitation. The capitalists call it exponential growth. These fuckers cannot profit without a large unemployed work force nipping at the heels of employed workers. One way to perhaps abolish capitalism would be to abolish unemployment. The entire system would collapse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_army_of_labour

[Peace on Earth]

In a perfect system, only those actively seeking work, as well as those who are unable to work (disabilities), should receive benefits. However, when there are seven people for each one opening in todays job market, there will be unemployment for everyone, causing many to ride out the storm. These people should be given benefits.

However, there should also be extensive job-training programs and educational opportunities so people can change their field of work easily.

[Adil3tr]

One of the biggest points of Marxism is full employment. Then its obvious who just isn't working, but I don;t think that will be a problem is tedious or degrading work is eliminated. Those who can't work deserve our help completely, and assistence in living normal lives to the best possible degree.

[Reznov]

A good follow up question,

How in a Socialist/Communist society will you be able to decide who is abusing the system, who really needs, how long they need it?

[Ocean Seal]

Do you think that everyone who is unemployed should receive benefits?

In my opinion, only those who actively try to seek work should receive benefits, alongside those who physically or mentally cannot work.
My problem with welfare is that it divides the workers into two camps the employed and the unemployed. I really see welfare as more of a creation of the businessmen who don't want to give the workers benefits and want to be able to fire them whenever possible without having to fear an insurrection. But at the same time taking welfare away is taking food and shelter.

[¿Que?]

Another follow up question:
Assuming there are two roads to social unrest, each with their own unique consequences and outcomes, those two roads being 1) the deterioration of capitalism by dismantling the state, including social programs and welfare, until it no longer can control the strength of the proletariat or 2)increasing state authority (including social programs and welfare) to make proletarian life easier, thereby more educated, thereby the proletariat understand better their historical role, and thus continue to demand from the state until it must demand the power of the state itself (notice not demand the state, but its power) the question I ask is, are reactionaries acting against their own interest in fighting against welfare and social programs on account that it will lead inevitably to scenario 1?

[Summerspeaker]

Under current circumstances, I'd like to see it expanded. If states must exist, they should do worthwhile things. Though I can understand why folks would want everyone to work in a revolutionary economy, I find forcing labor in this fashion oppressive and likely unnecessary.

[Revolution starts with U]

If everyone is gauranteed a place to stay, food to eat, access to education and healthcare... what "benefits" does one need?

[Victus Mortuum]

If a country increases benefits for its workers and unemployed (that is, reduces the legal level of surplus value), then capital will export from the country and labor will import until so much capital is removed and labor is added that massive unemployment drives the workers to demand their own protections removed (case and point: USA). These protections are short-term and will inevitably result in a worse situation for workers. The only solution is for the workers to demand democratic ownership and control of their workplaces.

[Revolution starts with U]

^ The point was never to defeat capitalism, per se. It is to sieze and democratize capitalism, creating socialism from the ground up.

[Summerspeaker]

If everyone is gauranteed a place to stay, food to eat, access to education and healthcare... what "benefits" does one need?

Some communists and technocrats would restrict or deny goods and services to able-bodied people who decline work after the revolution. As a major point of socialism is overthrow the parasitic bosses, wanting to prevent another band of freeloaders from emerging makes sense. As I said, however, I dislike the idea. I'd prefer free labor (not the capitalist kind) and free distribution. From a practical point of view, I wouldn't mind working a little longer to enable others to opt out. Without capitalist coercion and alienation, a few hours of communal labor a day would be a genuine pleasure. Indeed, the whole distinction between work and fun might fade away under such circumstances.

[Crusade]

I support it, but community service or perhaps temp agencies should be required alongside payments. I'm always frustrated by these issues since I, by nature, tend to want any system I'm in to be ran efficiently and any time people are being paid for nothing, when it's not an emergency, the system falls on its face. If I were a capitalist, I'd be a libertarian. Capitalism mandates loyalty to currency, regardless of how or why the numbers got that way, if it's ethical, ultimately beneficial, or any other range of thought beyond more or less numbers. Capitalism with a bunch of socialist band-aids is nothing more than the comb over a man does when he's balding. Everyone respects you more if you just let things happen naturally, or just shave it off. Even if it's more ethical, it makes no sense and insults the dollar gods all cappies must sacrifice unemployed lambs to in order to keep the beast alive. It also gave birth to the most powerful counter-revolutionary force in modern history: liberalism.

[R_P_A_S]

nice posts!

[ed miliband]

I support it, but community service or perhaps temp agencies should be required alongside payments. I'm always frustrated by these issues since I, by nature, tend to want any system I'm in to be ran efficiently and any time people are being paid for nothing, when it's not an emergency, the system falls on its face. If I were a capitalist, I'd be a libertarian. Capitalism mandates loyalty to currency, regardless of how or why the numbers got that way, if it's ethical, ultimately beneficial, or any other range of thought beyond more or less numbers. Capitalism with a bunch of socialist band-aids is nothing more than the comb over a man does when he's balding. Everyone respects you more if you just let things happen naturally, or just shave it off. Even if it's more ethical, it makes no sense and insults the dollar gods all cappies must sacrifice unemployed lambs to in order to keep the beast alive. It also gave birth to the most powerful counter-revolutionary force in modern history: liberalism.

Making people who receive benefits do "community work" or whatever is usually used as an excuse to lay off people who are actually employed to do those jobs.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Another follow up question:
Assuming there are two roads to social unrest, each with their own unique consequences and outcomes, those two roads being 1) the deterioration of capitalism by dismantling the state, including social programs and welfare, until it no longer can control the strength of the proletariat or 2)increasing state authority (including social programs and welfare) to make proletarian life easier, thereby more educated, thereby the proletariat understand better their historical role, and thus continue to demand from the state until it must demand the power of the state itself (notice not demand the state, but its power) the question I ask is, are reactionaries acting against their own interest in fighting against welfare and social programs on account that it will lead inevitably to scenario 1?That's a really good question. I think just like when struggles win reforms which then just lead to increased boldness ("with the eating comes the hunger") the opposite is true, if programs are being slashed and eliminated people can feel defensive and like they have less ability to change things. It's like, gee, it's better to have this shitty status quo than to have that gutted - rather than increasing the demands. US public education is a good example: teachers and the unions are right to be opposed to the "reform" plans of the ruling class, but they are only countering the privatization plans with demands for the status quo - which as it is, is shitty for parents, students, and teachers. This is a short-term reaction I think and eventually things would get so bad that people have no choice but to do some kind of fight back (as you describe in #1) but on the whole I think it is better for working class consciousness and radicalization when workers can fight on the offensive rather than just the defensive.

So I don't think the reactionaries are necessarily hurting themselves in the long run, but they are scoring ground in the short-term and I think that's their main concern - I think they are trying to see what they can get away with and how far they can push back labor conditions. It could cause a reaction but then they have plans B and C which are co-option by Democrats and repression if things get out of hand. If capitalists could think-long term and about the logical ramifications of the system, then they'd reject capitalism:lol:

[Arlekino]

To go on job interview you have to pass like XFactor panel or some stupid panel. Application forms are too hard to fill up seems impossible to write about herself 500 words what capitalist want and why why on CV we have to put reference, that why working class are better stay on benefits.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Bullocks. Capitalism at all times creates a perpetual unemployment rate of about 3% to 5%. Welfare and prison is what the capitalist state uses to control the 'reserve army of labor'.

I say so long as capitalism exists let their bourgeois state pay all unemployed workers ten times as much and without question. Fuck them :) The ones 'looking for work' are the people capitalists use to keep the ones with work working harder and faster. It's all intertwined with the end result being exponential exploitation. The capitalists call it exponential growth. These fuckers cannot profit without a large unemployed work force nipping at the heels of employed workers. One way to perhaps abolish capitalism would be to abolish unemployment. The entire system would collapse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_army_of_labourAnd for the OP question, I agree with the above x 10!

Capitalism creates unemployment and so any requirements made on workers to have to actively looking for work are empty IMO and when politicians use this line it is to suggest that workers create unemployment, not the demands of the profit-system. In times like the ones were are living through, in addition to everything Amphictyonis said, unemployment goes hand in hand with both increased tempo of work for remaining workers and/or decreased wages for the same amount of work. The bosses are trying to recapture profits by increasing the rate of exploitation.

If workers controlled and ran production collectivly, then they would have no interest in allowing unnecessary unemployment to exist because the more people able to work, the easier the overall labor is on everyone or the more you can produce the things we need (Capitalism is not interested in either of these concerns). As to the question of how would workers deal with induvidual workers who do not pull their weight and whatnot, I think that would have to be something they decide work-site to work-site. There could be some larger incentives to working such as not being allowed certain services if you are not working - although I think it would be important and in our interests that all basic necessities be met for everyone. So maybe if you chose not to work, you would still be able to get food and a place to live, but dining co-ops may decide that you can not enjoy the products of their labor if you are also not contributing to labor in the community. Or maybe it would be as simple as being a worker allows you to be enfranchised but if you are not working, you would not be able to vote on community issues as fully or something. Anyway, I'm sure some people would slack or whatnot, and I'm sure workers could figure out a fair way to deal with that and balance to need to actually work to produce what is wanted and needed with the issues and conflicts of individuals that arise. The main thing is that without the alienation of capitalism, there would not be such a wall between worker/consumer that exists now - people would understand that in order to participate in the enjoyment of what society produces, you also need to participate in production at some level. And in your labor, you would be working to produce things that society need, you'd have the ability to coordinate with you co-workers and control the conditions of your labor and so it would not be like it is now when really the work you do is alienated and for the benefit of profit.

[Ovi]

Do you think that everyone who is unemployed should receive benefits?

In my opinion, only those who actively try to seek work should receive benefits, alongside those who physically or mentally cannot work.
Unemployment encompasses by definition only those who actively seek work.

Unemployment occurs when a person is without a job and has actively looked for work within the past two weeks
Should those who can't find a job be helped by society? If society can't give everybody the means to sustain themselves, then it has the obligation to help those left behind.

[Fullmetal Anarchist]

The welfare system is truely broken in the U.K. I've got a brain tumour (which causes frequent seizures and blackouts as well as psuedo-Parkinsonism) and understandbly at present I'm unable to work. At present I'm struggling by with no money due to the sheer amount of stress (which aggravates my condition), paperwork (which I can't always fill out due to my motor skills turning to shit when I'm stressed), bureaucracy (meaning my claim is going nowhere fast), and sheer bloody mindedness of the jobcentre staff who think I'm fucking faking.

Those of us who need help should just get it and not be made to jump through all these ridiculous hoops to prove how much trouble we're in. It's fucking ridiculous how much I'm being made to do and I honestly love to be working but it's just not possible at present so give me the help I need and then I'll go back to work for fuck's sake.

[Jimmie Higgins]

^I hate how easy the right-wing makes life sound for the poor or down-and-out: look at all this free stuff you get, sitting around eating free government cheese! For anyone who's ever had to deal with housing or welfare or (in the US) free medical clinics knows how horrible it is to deal with all this.

[Quail]

I hate how easy the right-wing makes life sound for the poor or down-and-out: look at all this free stuff you get, sitting around eating free government cheese! For anyone who's ever had to deal with housing or welfare or (in the US) free medical clinics knows how horrible it is to deal with all this.
This.
I hate needing housing benefits to get by. The council seems to have done their utmost to make it as awkward as possible for me to apply and sort things out, and in the process basically cheated me out of months of benefit, which means I'm into my overdraft. And now they've sent me a letter telling me they're going to stop my benefit unless I fill in some more forms and show them some more evidence, just in case they overpay me.