Socialism and social parasites

[Evo2]

In my country, wales/UK I know many people who get pregnant to receive housing and money taken from taxes


How would socialism eliminate this practice? Would reproduction have to be socially controlled?

[Radio Spartacus]

Social parasites? Are you sure you aren't an objectivist with that kind of rhetoric? Try not to buy into the ruling class narrative of welfare dependency, and please don't fling personal anecdotes at me to try to support it.

Housing is a human right, especially in socialism. There also is no money. So the practice doesn't even fit in the socialist economy if you're so worried about it.

[helot]

wtf? Raising children is a socially useful task, in fact it is one of the most important tasks within a society. The notion that such a thing is parasitic is absurd.

[Evo2]

Yet I personally know people who choose to pretend to not be able to work and/or have children, so they can live off taxes

I have even been told by a family member "why should I work, when I the state funds me to breed"

So, my point stands... How is this dealt with under socialism?

[Radio Spartacus]

wtf? Raising children is a socially useful task, in fact it is one of the most important tasks within a society. The notion that such a thing is parasitic is absurd.

Some people seem to buy into the notion that everyone on government aid wants to be on it for some reason or another, as though they're living lives of luxury.

[Evo2]

*i can

[Evo2]

Yet if someone tells you that's the reason they do it, then it's not capitalist propaganda

[Radio Spartacus]

Yet I personally know people who choose to pretend to not be able to work and/or have children, so they can live off taxes

I have even been told by a family member "why should I work, when I the state funds me to breed"

So, my point stands... How is this dealt with under socialism?

What did I say about personal anecdotes?

Even in some bizarre world where this was a serious problem, it's distinct to a system with money that requires people to sell labor power to provide basic needs.

[Remus Bleys]

*i can
You can edit posts. This isn't reddit.

And wtf is this shit? Housing is a human right. Children will be born and taken care of. The dotp may or may not force work, it would seriously depend on the time.

But this notion of "People live off taxes! THERE SO LAZY!!!111!" Honestly, their not even as bad as the bourgeoisie. Even if this imaginary thing happened, it would be more easy to deal with then the people who are already living of taxes and our surplus labor. Focus on that and not the pregnant mother living paycheck to paycheck.

Shit like this is why people buy into that "political circle" shit.

[Evo2]

To me, if someone doesn't work then they don't eat. This is the definition of socialism (disability, oap and children excluded of course)

Therefore people should only have children they can "afford" to feed. From
Each according to their ability, to each according to their contribution.

Why is it fair for people to breed uncontrollably and expect others to sustain them and their brood?

[Evo2]

Yet I KNOW people who want to live off taxes, and the idea of having to work (socialism) horrifies them


How do we view these people as socialists?

[Radio Spartacus]

To me, if someone doesn't work then they don't eat. This is the definition of socialism (disability, oap and children excluded of course)

Therefore people should only have children they can "afford" to feed. From
Each according to their ability, to each according to their contribution.

Why is it fair for people to breed uncontrollably and expect others to sustain them and their brood?

I promise that's not the definition of socialism. I bold italicize underline promise.

I wouldn't base so much of your ideology off of some people you know. Also, as was said they're better people than the bourgeoisie.

Bearing in mind I do not believe in your general premise that these so called "parasites" are a problem, I'll rebut your argument in terms of your fantasy world.

So the "parasites" wouldn't have to have children "uncontrollably" to get food and housing because everyone would have those things. One who doesn't work and is able to may not have access to much more of society's resources, but everyone gets to live.

The bourgeoisie are the real free-loaders though, don't victim-blame the poor.

[Evo2]

Secondly: in order that everyone in society can enjoy prosperity, everybody must work. Only somebody who performs some useful work for the public at large, whether by hand or brain, can be entitled to receive from society the means for satisfying his needs. A life of leisure like most of the rich exploiters currently lead will come to an end. A general requirement to work for all who are able to do so, from which small children, the aged and sick are exempted, is a matter of course in a socialist economy. The public at large must provide forthwith for those unable to work – not like now with paltry alms but with generous provision, socialised child-raising, enjoyable care for the elderly, public health care for the sick, etc.

Rosa luxemborg

[Evo2]

So under socialism, if I don't want to work (and I'm not old or sick) I can eat

Then why work ;)

[Evo2]

I promise that's not the definition of socialism. I bold italicize underline promise.

I wouldn't base so much of your ideology off of some people you know. Also, as was said they're better people than the bourgeoisie.

Bearing in mind I do not believe in your general premise that these so called "parasites" are a problem, I'll rebut your argument in terms of your fantasy world.

So the "parasites" wouldn't have to have children "uncontrollably" to get food and housing because everyone would have those things. One who doesn't work and is able to may not have access to much more of society's resources, but everyone gets to live.

The bourgeoisie are the real free-loaders though, don't victim-blame the poor.


So If I don't want to work, in general, under socialism I still get to live?


Why work? ;)

[argeiphontes]

Yet I personally know people who choose to pretend to not be able to work and/or have children, so they can live off taxes

The incentives for this would disappear if everyone is entitled to a basic subsistence. Then, adding a child would only entitle one to additional subsistence for the child. There is nothing to be profited from.

For example, even though a parent would be entitled to extra food, there is no way to profit from the extra food, and only so much a person can eat. In a capitalist economy, you could sell your food or food credits (the SNAP program) for cash (at a loss) to spend on other things. The person giving the cash earns a profit from the transaction. But in communism selling food doesn't work because nobody wants to buy it from you, since they are able to get their own without a market.

edit: As for why work, say the economy has labor credits instead of money. In that case, you can't earn them from anything but work, and you can't trade labor credits for anything else (they're nontransferrable), and this prevents any kind of labor credit market from appearing.

[Evo2]

Socialism is everyone getting back what they put in

Having vast amount of babies retards society.


Furthermore, no one has answered how "free loaders" will be dealt with under socialism?

[argeiphontes]

Please see above. I think that would work.

[Radio Spartacus]

So If I don't want to work, in general, under socialism I still get to live?


Why work? ;)

There are several reasons. One I'm partial to is the idea that all people receive their basic needs as a human right, then are granted access to the whole of society (libraries, art museums, transportation, concerts, everything that falls outside of needs) for 5 hours of productive labor. People crave these things enough to work, no? This is also putting human passions aside, which is another great motivator.

In times of shortage I understand prioritizing workers over non-workers but I can't imagine a socialist economy where the basic needs of people aren't abundant.

Anyway, there aren't a tenth as many "free loaders" in capitalist society as you think so I don't see why you're worried and not everyone needs to work to keep society afloat.

[Evo2]

You did answer some of my points, however the main thrust of my argument is that a "welfare state" is ultimately bad for humanity.


A) It makes people happy with their lot in capitalism

B) It can lead to a sub class of social parasites who live off the surplus of both capitalists and workers, while producing nothing of their own. Therefore, a class enemy to the workers like the capitalists.


Many of these people hate capitalism, yet hate socialism as well because they would have to work. They therefore love social democratic parties like the Labour Party (uk) as they sustain them.

[synthesis]

Rosa luxemborg

She's pretty obviously talking about the hypothetical soon-to-be-former bourgeoisie, not so-called "social parasites."

Anyway, if you think this is such a problem, what do you propose be done about it? Accepting the premise that this is even a problem (I don't) how do you think this should be solved in such a way that allowing people to "live off the system" (lol) isn't the lesser evil?

[argeiphontes]

You did answer some of my points, however the main thrust of my argument is that a "welfare state" is ultimately bad for humanity.


A) It makes people happy with their lot in capitalism

B) It can lead to a sub class of social parasites who live off the surplus of both capitalists and workers, while producing nothing of their own. Therefore, a class enemy to the workers like the capitalists.


Well, to be fair, you've moved the goalpost because socialism and a welfare state aren't the same thing. Justifying a welfare state is a little beyond the scope of this board, as everyone here would like to get rid of all capitalist states, regardless if you get something for free or not.

But, most people aren't wards of the welfare state; they're out there working, even if it's for poverty wages. Some people are trying to play the system and get some government cheese, but then you have to question why anyone would actually want to work in a capitalist system, given that it's so unrewarding.

edit: And having a third group like that is helpful to "divide and conquer" the working class and set them against both the government and the poor.

[Evo2]

Well, first of all by adhering to socialisms standard of getting what you put in. That eliminates a vast number of social parasitism right there.

Secondly, population control

Therefore people who can work, will work. Also you stop people having 12 kids as a source of income (while also stopping the drain on society they 12 kids imposes)

The only welfare being for the old, sick and disabled.

The rest, as rosa said, work.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

A lady I work with likes to get on her soapbox about 'freeloading' relatives. The thing is, she works a job that could be eliminated with an excel spreadsheet if anyone was smart enough to notice it. Is this woman more entitled to housing than someone who watches TV all day on the government's dime?

[Evo2]

I didn't say it's a "problem", that's a straw man

I asked how socialism deals with this behaviour in the individuals who express it

[Evo2]

A lady I work with likes to get on her soapbox about 'freeloading' relatives. The thing is, she works a job that could be eliminated with an excel spreadsheet if anyone was smart enough to notice it. Is this woman more entitled to housing than someone who watches TV all day on the government's dime?

You have a ghost of a point, however my original point was aimed at

A) welfare state

B) social parasites under socialism

[synthesis]

Well, first of all by adhering to socialisms standard of getting what you put in. That eliminates a vast number of social parasitism right there.

Secondly, population control

Therefore people who can work, can and also you stop people having 12 kids as a source of income (while also stopping the drain on society they 12 kids imposes)

The only welfare being for the old, sick and disabled.

The rest, as rosa said, work.

In your little ideal society, who decides which people can be considered eligible for disability benefits? Like, how do you measure how serious someone's personality disorder is if that's a factor that keeps them from working?

I think the bigger question is, working on what? Do you really think, with all the resources, buildings and so on that wouldn't need to be reserved for business purposes, we'd have that much trouble feeding, clothing and sheltering everybody, regardless of their ability or even desire to work?

And who decides what kind of work is productive enough to justify fulfilling people's basic human needs?

(The "population control" bit sounds a lot like eugenics to me, to be honest.)

[argeiphontes]

A lady I work with likes to get on her soapbox about 'freeloading' relatives. The thing is, she works a job that could be eliminated with an excel spreadsheet if anyone was smart enough to notice it. Is this woman more entitled to housing than someone who watches TV all day on the government's dime?

Or managers. They don't really do anything that the workers couldn't do themselves. It's basically waste.

Insurance companies... the list of waste is really long.

[Radio Spartacus]

I didn't say it's a "problem", that's a straw man

I asked how socialism deals with this behaviour in the individuals who express it

Again, give everyone what they need. If you really believe there is a need for incentives, don't play with people's lives. I pointed out a solution to this borderline-imaginary problem that has been left unaddressed.

[synthesis]

Evo2, it honestly sounds like you want to punish these people out of spite rather than any genuine desire to improve society.

[Evo2]

Anyway, there aren't a tenth as many "free loaders" in capitalist society as you think so I don't see why you're worried

Because I care about equality, you know ... Minor stuff ;)


and not everyone needs to work to keep society afloat.

Glad to know, I'll push out a dozen babies then and relax while you work for me (sound familiar ;) )

[Evo2]

Evo2, it honestly sounds like you want to punish these people out of spite rather than any genuine desire to improve society.

Not at all, most of them are my family members

What I want is a fair society where people don't live off the work of others out of laziness and greed

[Evo2]

I think the left, out of zeal of anti capitalism, had ignored the MINORITY who wish to live of state taxes and not contribute to society. Who see having babies as a career option.

It does happen

[synthesis]

Not at all, most of them are my family members

What I want is a fair society where people don't live off the work of others out of laziness and greed

There is enough of a social stigma around so-called "freeloading" now.

But here's the main question you're avoiding: Who decides whether someone has contributed enough, or has done enough work, or whether their work is valuable enough? Why do we need to have some arbitrary body deciding whether and which poets and musicians are worthy of food and shelter? That's a state and communism is stateless.

"We should not say that one man's hour is worth another man's hour, but that one man in an hour is worth just as much as another man in an hour." - Karl

[Evo2]

(The "population control" bit sounds a lot like eugenics to me, to be honest.)

I will answer in full tomorrow but I couldn't let this gem go

Eugenics is selective breeding, not population control. They are two distinct views.

Furthermore do you think, that with limited resources, uncontrolled breeding is good for any species? All that ends in is war, hunger an death.

If a house fits 50 people, you don't allow 200 to go in :/

[synthesis]

I think the left, out of zeal of anti capitalism, had ignored the MINORITY who wish to live of state taxes and not contribute to society. Who see having babies as a career option.

It does happen

No, we ignore people who whine about "parasites" as though it seriously impacts society in any way. You haven't even attempted to quantify the actual effects this so-called problem has in the real world.

edit: 5/10 troll

[Evo2]

But here's the main question you're avoiding: Who decides whether someone has contributed enough, or has done enough work, or whether their work is valuable enough? Why do we need to have some arbitrary body deciding whether and which poets and musicians are worthy of food and shelter? That's a state and communism is stateless.

That's a golden question, who decides "from each according to his contribution"?

[tachosomoza]

I think the left, out of zeal of anti capitalism, had ignored the MINORITY who wish to live of state taxes and not contribute to society. Who see having babies as a career option.

It does happen

And I think you have been brainwashed by bourgeois right wing libertarian dog whistles and anti poor rhetoric. You fail to criticize the bourgeoisie, who as a class live off the worker's taxes and their...well, work. That's the biggest problem facing humanity. 2 bourgeois harm society more than a million of your "minority who wish to live off of state taxes". What do you call the billionaire who doesn't pay taxes because they're "for the little people"? Those are the real vampires and leeches, but you've been fooled into ignoring them and attacking other members of your class.

Thank you, come again.

[Evo2]

No, we ignore people who whine about "parasites" as though it seriously impacts society in any way. You haven't even attempted to quantify the actual effects this so-called problem has in the real world.

No, you just get hysterical and launch a "reserve army of unemployed straw men" at me

"Eugenics"

"You say it's a problem"

Etc

All I'm trying to get at is how socialism deals with this tendency IN THE MINORITY"

And also how the welfare state can contribute to this classes growth

[Evo2]

And I think you have been brainwashed by bourgeois right wing libertarian dog whistles and anti poor rhetoric. You fail to criticize the bourgeoisie, who as a class live off the worker's taxes and their...well, work. That's the biggest problem facing humanity. 2 bourgeois harm society more than a million of your "minority who wish to live off of state taxes". What do you call the billionaire who doesn't pay taxes because they're "for the little people"? Those are the real vampires and leeches, but you've been fooled into ignoring them and attacking other members of your class.

Thank you, come again.

I agree

However the minority who choose to live off the surplus off both is as much a class enemy as the capitalists

Just because they are my class doesn't mean their interest lies with me

Just like engles, he was a capitalist but his interests didn't lie with them ;)

[synthesis]

All I'm trying to get at is how socialism deals with this tendency IN THE MINORITY

I think you're the only person here who thinks that "socialism" (as if "socialism" is some independent entity in a mystical ideological realm) has to deal with this "tendency."

You still haven't adequately explained why we have to deal with it. I mean, for all you know, the amount of resources we expend trying to "deal with this tendency" could be more than the amount of resources it takes to just fucking feed and clothe people. (Troll.)

[Evo2]

And btw, capitalists live off surplus labour ... Not taxes ;)

[Radio Spartacus]

Because I care about equality, you know ... Minor stuff ;)



Glad to know, I'll push out a dozen babies then and relax while you work for me (sound familiar ;) )

Taking two of my lesser points (out of context) out of what I said and ignoring the actual solution put forward? Sounds like you're the one unwilling to work. Also, there is no incentive to "push out a dozen babies" in socialism.

Anyway, you genuinely sound like George Bush.

[Evo2]

You still haven't adequately explained why we have to deal with it. I mean, for all you know, the amount of resources we expend trying to "deal with this tendency" could be more than the amount of resources it takes to just fucking feed and clothe people. (Troll.)

I wish I had blackboard to spell it out :(

I'm ASKING how this is dealt with, it at all, under socialism and if welfare states do more harm to the working class than good


ASKING

ASKING

ASKING

[synthesis]

I wish I had blackboard to spell it out :(

I'm ASKING how this is dealt with, it at all, under socialism and if welfare states do more harm to the working class than good


ASKING

ASKING

ASKING

1. Present some real evidence that "welfare states do more harm to the working class than good" and maybe I'll change my mind about you being a troll. (Seriously, that's fucking stupid.)

2. You're not asking anything; you just keep repeating this idea that we shouldn't feed or clothe people who don't live up to some arbitrary standard of productivity and rejecting any other approaches to the issue.

3. Troll.

[#FF0000]

To me, if someone doesn't work then they don't eat. This is the definition of socialism (disability, oap and children excluded of course)

Therefore people should only have children they can "afford" to feed. From
Each according to their ability, to each according to their contribution.

Why is it fair for people to breed uncontrollably and expect others to sustain them and their brood?

Actually, everything you've said here is explicitly antithetical to socialism. We're not about entirely subordinating the individual to "the group". Our goal is maximizing freedom for everyone. We're talking about freedom from want, and freedom from exploitation and, yeah, freedom from work.

But what I think is funny is, despite your crude collectivism, is your assertion that childcare is the job of the mother, the family, the individual -- a decidedly conservative outlook which has kept women locked in domestic labor and subservient.

Further, when you say "having too many children retards society", you're begging the question in a massive way. You're assuming from the get-go, first of all, that overpopulation is a serious issue, which is assuredly false. Even if there were not enough resources for everyone on the planet (which isn't necessarily true -- the issue is one of distribution for the most part, except for when it comes to our inefficient and wasteful means of producing energy), most industrialized nations are more worried about their declining birthrates, and even where the birthrates are high (Southeast Asia, Africa), they're set to plateau within a few decades. There's simply nothing to back up this silly malthusian view of things.

And you also beg the question by assuming that this is anything but a negligible problem. Like in the US, most benefits errors are a result of error on the part of vendors, and not claimants. And the idea that people are getting pregnant in the first place just to get more money is ludicrous, because the benefits are barely enough to cover the cost of raising a child in the first place.

This is kind of an exhausting topic, and I know there's more here for me to cover, but I'm gonna let you respond to more easily get a handhold to grapple with these stupid ideas

[Remus Bleys]

Wow. You guys really did fall for troll bait, huh?

[tachosomoza]

I agree

However the minority who choose to live off the surplus off both is as much a class enemy as the capitalists

Just because they are my class doesn't mean their interest lies with me

Just like engles, he was a capitalist but his interests didn't lie with them ;)

Fucking frost troll.

*fus...RO DAH*

[#FF0000]

Let's stop with the unhelpful replies -- troll or not, going "omg troll" isn't the way to deal with it and doesn't make you look very good.

Especially considering everyone has a really shitty troll-dar around here anyway.

[Evo2]

Ok, people think I'm a troll (which I'm genuinely not)

So let me rephrase and start again

How do Marxists view the working class who verbally say " I don't want to work when I can live off the state" and how do they fit into a socialist model


Now before mass hysteria breaks out that I'm a fan of eugenics and Galton, or I'm a Tory troll, or some other smear, let it be said that I am asking YOUR opinion, as Marxists.


Let me say again, your opinion ... Not my "troll" opinion (which I'm not)


*takes breath

[#FF0000]

How do Marxists view the working class who verbally say " I don't want to work when I can live off the state" and how do they fit into a socialist model

Nobody wants to work -- but it (usually) pays better than living off the state, unless you've got some kind of real sweet hustle set up (in which case, more power to you)

But honestly, I don't see the point in having a "view" of a caricature of benefits claimants that exist in the imaginations of arch-conservatives.

I think you should take a look at the huge waste-of-text I posted earlier.

[Evo2]

But what I think is funny is, despite your crude collectivism, is your assertion that childcare is the job of the mother, the family, the individual -- a decidedly conservative outlook which has kept women locked in domestic labor and subservient.

Nice try, but I never said that. One of the major factors for the development of society was women having control over their reproductive cycle which is why, incidentally, I'm pro abortion.


I'm also the least interested in viewing women as "homemakers", being a gay man I vie families slightly differently

[#FF0000]

Nice try, but I never said that.

You should take a closer look at your ideas and their implications, dude. You said people should only have children that they themselves are capable of taking care of (as if one's capacity for providing for their children/families is some fixed thing, and people don't lose jobs, get sick, etc. etc. etc.)

[Evo2]

Well it's not a view of all benefit claimants at all. That's grossly exaggerating my point. I claimed benefits myself at one point. My point was about the minority that do choose to live off the state, which I guess you answered with "nobody wants to work".

Still, how would this undesirable trait be reduced, possibly even removed, under socialism?


*waits for straw man "troll" attack

[Evo2]

You should take a closer look at your ideas and their implications, dude. You said people should only have children that they themselves are capable of taking care of (as if one's capacity for providing for their children/families is some fixed thing, and people don't lose jobs, get sick, etc. etc. etc.)

I agree I didn't phrase it well, and of course straight couples will always end up with a baby by accident.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Three things:

(1) Rosa Luxemborg was speaking in an era where there was no "Welfare class" nor was there an abundance of industrial and agricultural surplus, as there is today. The proletariat might have compelled people to work after taking power in the early 1900s, but there is no need to today.

(2) There are structural blocks to these people working. It's easy to say that they can just go out and "get a job" when ignoring the fact that most jobs which are easily attainable are simply not worth the cost in labor time. This "welfare class" isn't economically stupid. In addition, in a socialist society, people wouldn't have to work 8 hours a day because there would be no incentive for those who "own the means of production" to demand long work hours from a few workers, instead of fewer work hours from many workers.

(3) Being pregnant and having a baby is hard. As for child rearing, as the quote from Rosa points out, it is effectively "labor" and should be socialized anyways. Paying pregnant women money is simply a crude way of paying women for their household labor and for keeping children from being unattended. Blame the welfare state for creating a culture of dependency, don't blame young women for making economically reasonable choices.

Talking about "social parasites" is short sighted, simplistic and morally loaded. It doesn't tell us anything about why they do this and how the conditions lead to it.

[synthesis]

Still, how would this undesirable trait be reduced, possibly even removed, under socialism?

I think all the explanations offered above are great, but for me what it boils down to is this: If you aren't open to changing your mind about "welfare parasites" representing a significant "undesirable trait" that we need to expend energy on "reducing" or "removing," then it's better for everyone if you fuck off and stop calling yourself a socialist.

[Radio Spartacus]

Well it's not a view of all benefit claimants at all. That's grossly exaggerating my point. I claimed benefits myself at one point. My point was about the minority that do choose to live off the state, which I guess you answered with "nobody wants to work".

Still, how would this undesirable trait be reduced, possibly even removed, under socialism?


*waits for straw man "troll" attack

Your question about people not wanting to work was answered several times.

One poster mentioned labor vouchers, I put forward a different idea about levels of access to common resources. Neither of them seemed to have gotten through to you.

Most people are now more concerned with the lack of scientific evidence in your argument and your bourgeois view on the poor.

[Evo2]

What it boils down to is this: If you aren't open to changing your mind about "welfare parasites" representing a significant "undesirable trait" that we need to expend energy on "reducing" or "removing," then it's better for everyone if you fuck off and stop calling yourself a socialist.



A)

"If you aren't open to changing your mind about "welfare parasites""

If I didn't want to "change my mind" then I would just assert and not ask for opinions :/


B) "welfare parasites" representing a significant"

I said minority, based on my own experience.


C) "if you fuck off and stop calling yourself a socialist."

How mature

[Lily Briscoe]

The whole idea of "contributing to society" is pretty absurd. Out of curiosity, OP, what century do you think you're living in? A huge portion, if not actually the majority, of the working class in the UK do jobs which "contribute" fuck all to "society", unless lining their boss's pockets is your idea of "contributing to society". Which isn't to moralize at all, or to make any sort of judgment about the moral "worth" of these people (I don't make these sorts of judgments at all, and find them quite despicable). it's just the reality of most predominantly service-sector economies. Of course, you could also make the case that most jobs in 'production' don't actually contribute to society either. I mean, is a Bangledeshi woman whose job consists of sewing expensive designer jeans for rich people in the west 'contributing to society'? Are the workers who clear a bunch of trees on a plot of private land in order to build an industrial park or administrative offices (or the workers who actually build such structures), "contributing to society"? Are autoworkers who assemble luxury cars "contributing to society"?

Production in capitalism isn't about "contributing to society" at all, and having a job isn't a measure of your "contribution to society".

Also, forgive my skepticism, but I find it really incredibly unlikely that you actually know loads of women who keep having babies so that they don't have to work. Unless--ohhh, I get it...you must totally be one of those people who live in that parallel universe where being an unemployed woman with a bunch of little kids to raise is actually financially advantageous. That makes sense, then.

[Evo2]

One poster mentioned labor vouchers, I put forward a different idea about levels of access to common resources. Neither of them seemed to have gotten through to you.

Not at all :)

[Radio Spartacus]

Not at all :)

Alright. In what ways would either of those not serve an equal or better motivator to work than capitalist society does? If you have to read the proposals several times I can wait.

And once again, I don't view your analysis of welfare recipients as nuanced, valid, or scientific

[synthesis]

Look, Evo2, if you're really open to ditching this idea that "social parasites" are "a problem that needs to be dealt with," what you should realize is this:

Every system that is set up to help people is open to being abused. You can't reduce the capacity for that system to be abused without also reducing its capacity for helping people. So the question becomes, which is more important to you? Preventing "abuse" of the system, or helping people?

[Jack Daniels]

That would be a main concept of socialism, they wouldn't have to worry about housing or taxes. So no, that wouldn't and shouldn't be controlled.

[Marxaveli]

OP is an either an idiot, a troll, or maybe both.

Only parasites in the world are the capitalist class who produce absolutely no value in the world and do not work because they have an army of wage slaves to do all the work for them.

A single working mother wouldn't need to rely on the state to take care of herself under socialism, because:

1. There are no classes, and thus no state, in a socialist organization of society

2. And because of point #1, she would have the means, ability, and self-determination to take care of herself and her children - whereas under capitalism she is either forced to sell her labor to a capitalist parasite, or dehumanize herself to their state apparatus to sustain herself and her family depending on material circumstances.

[Marshal of the People]

OP is an either an idiot, a troll, or maybe both.

Only parasites in the world are the capitalist class who produce absolutely no value in the world and do not work because they have an army of wage slaves to do all the work for them.

A single working mother wouldn't need to rely on the state to take care of herself under socialism, because:

1. There are no classes, and thus no state, in a socialist organization of society

2. And because of point #1, she would have the means, ability, and self-determination to take care of herself and her children - whereas under capitalism she is either forced to sell her labor to a capitalist parasite, or dehumanize herself to their state apparatus to sustain herself and her family depending on material circumstances.

I agree with the above post except for Socialism having no state, of course in the Marxist definition there is no state though in a lot of other definitions the state does exist.


(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.


Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.


(Economics) an economic theory or system in which the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned by the community collectively, usually through the state. It is characterized by production for use rather than profit, by equality of individual wealth, by the absence of competitive economic activity, and, usually, by government determination of investment, prices, and production levels Compare capitalism


a theory or system of social organization in which the means of production and distribution of goods are owned and controlled collectively or by the government.

[#FF0000]

I agree with the above post except for Socialism having no state, of course in the Marxist definition there is no state though in a lot of other definitions the state does exist.

The Marxist definition is what we're talking about, though. The other definitions aren't really relevant, then.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

This reads more like an OI thread. Seriously, the only social parasites are the bourgeoisie, and why would we care if someone is scamming the bourgeois state?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

In my country, wales/UK I know many people who get pregnant to receive housing and money taken from taxes

How would socialism eliminate this practice? Would reproduction have to be socially controlled?

Why should it be eliminated? You admit that it's the kind of thing done by a minority, and the utility of clamping down on so-called "freeloaders" is vastly outweighed by the penalties that would be suffered by the "genuine cases" as well as the rest of society. The so-called "freeloaders" are most likely to in fact be people making the most rational economic decision available to them - especially in the current economic climate when even people with experience, good CVs and no criminal record are finding it hard to get steady work that pays decently. The spread of zero-hours contracts (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/zerohours-contracts-not-only-affecting-lowpaid-workers-reveals-report-8786825.html) which negatively affect all workers only reinforces the wisdom of such decisions.

Forcing such people into work, especially through programs like workfare, also has negative effects for those who have full-time jobs. Why should an employer bother actually paying anyone when they could get free labour from unemployed people on workfare? Why bother paying more money to experienced workers when some bunch of spivs like A4e (http://www.boycottworkfare.org/?tag=a4e) can supply unemployed folks who'll work unpaid on pain of benefits sanctions (http://skwalker1964.wordpress.com/2013/05/27/dwps-own-research-sanctions-damaging-counterproductive-so-it-does-more/)?

[Marshal of the People]

The Marxist definition is what we're talking about, though. The other definitions aren't really relevant, then.

Okay I understand now, I didn't know if you were using the Marxist definition or making a general statement about socialism. Sorry if I offended or annoyed you.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I have even been told by a family member "why should I work, when I the state funds me to breed"You're a member of the royal family!?

In all seriousness though, capitalism needs a workforce, it needs people to reproduce themselves and capitalist economies need a growing population or there can be economic problems. But how they accomlish this is by shifting this responcibility onto atomized family units... and when there is no family, then onto the mother. This also causes problems and instability for the system (and problems for us and dysfunction in family units, but I'll take all the for given) and so for the ruling class their options are: Victorian style workhouses, tons of street children and problems that come with this, or some level of assistance. They don't care if our lives are miserable, but they do care if we begin to revolt because conditions are too miserable.

In a society run collectivly by workers, it wouldn't be induvidual mothers who bear the sole responcibility for raising kids (sometimes with assistance from family or husbands or friends) and socialism doesn't require constant population growth. So every child could get services and care provided just as every adult would have their needs met. This would take a great deal of pressure off of parents so they wouldn't have to choose, do I stay home to take care of my kid all the time because they are too young for school and I can't afford childcare... or do I stay at home and just get assistance. Without systemic inequality and poverty there would be no incentive to "game" the system - what, parents would "steal" extra childcare services? They'd take twice as much available baby-food and diapers just because it was provided? No. In capitalism we need money to survive and so a small amount of people will always try and game these programs and I don't really have an issue of it - best of luck to them actually - it's a drop in the bucket in the US compared to how much our politicians have "stolen" from our social wages in the last 20 years.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

...sorry, I appear to have stumbled onto the Daily Mail website, my mistake... :|

Without the benefits I receive as a full time worker, I wouldn't be able to afford to pay for my sons' food, nappies etc. I only work the rubbish job I have to pay the bills, if social housing wasn't even crapper than the house I rent now I'd consider it.
Private companies and capital do not provide the incentive or the means to pay for half of what you need to get by if you are an 'unskilled' worker of any age or gender, whether you have kids or not.
This admittedly flawed system my family, any many many others, rely on may be open to some level of 'abuse'. Considering the damage caused by capitalists and their patsy governments (lives lost in wars, exploitation etc) the cynical act of having kids to get a council house at the expense of the tax man's coffers is of minimal concern. A small group of people do this and the damage caused is nothing compared to that caused by social and economic system that gives rise them doing it in the first place.
So basically, enough of the 'hard-working families' versus 'dole-scum spongers' bullshit, ta very much.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

What would you say to these people OP? They're your family, do you want your family out on the street now because they'd rather not work for the capitalists? And struggle day to day doing things they'd rather not to get a few bucks here and there? Starvation? These are not ways to live.

In socialist society who's having kids for a house when you already have a right to one?

[Evo2]

OP is an either an idiot, a troll, or maybe both.

Only parasites in the world are the capitalist class who produce absolutely no value in the world and do not work because they have an army of wage slaves to do all the work for them.

A single working mother wouldn't need to rely on the state to take care of herself under socialism, because:

1. There are no classes, and thus no state, in a socialist organization of society

2. And because of point #1, she would have the means, ability, and self-determination to take care of herself and her children - whereas under capitalism she is either forced to sell her labor to a capitalist parasite, or dehumanize herself to their state apparatus to sustain herself and her family depending on material circumstances.


I think that has actually answered my question

Thanks :)

[Marxaveli]

However the minority who choose to live off the surplus off both is as much a class enemy as the capitalists

Incorrect.


Just because they are my class doesn't mean their interest lies with me

Incorrect.


Just like engles, he was a capitalist but his interests didn't lie with them ;)

Incorrect (not to mention irrelevant) yet again.

[Evo2]

Look, Evo2, if you're really open to ditching this idea that "social parasites" are "a problem that needs to be dealt with," what you should realize is this:

Every system that is set up to help people is open to being abused. You can't reduce the capacity for that system to be abused without also reducing its capacity for helping people. So the question becomes, which is more important to you? Preventing "abuse" of the system, or helping people?


Helping people

I suppose any system is open to abuse, your correct there

In retrospect my op was wrong, so I retract it

[G4b3n]

First off, I am willing to ignore your ruling class rhetoric.
This problem that you believe to be real and existing is by and large due to what we believe labor to be in bourgeois society. It is the common notion that labor is something that is undesirable and something that humans have to be driven by force to do.
When really, it is no shock that people are not thrilled to sell themselves to every autocrat willing to pay them enough to survive while the benevolent neo-liberal state is willing to do the same in some circumstances. Perhaps if labor were organized in a community based manner with surplus being directed toward the benefit of all, and labor going to actually necessary tasks, then we might find it more suitable.

[Per Levy]

To me, if someone doesn't work then they don't eat. This is the definition of socialism (disability, oap and children excluded of course)

let me tell you something, "who doesnt work shall not eat" was a slogan against capitalists who didnt work and live of the work of the workers. to abuse that, very old, slogan to put more shit on people who allready have a quite shitty life is pretty meanspirited.

also, "who doesnt work shall not eat", is not the definition of socialism.


Therefore people should only have children they can "afford" to feed. From
Each according to their ability, to each according to their contribution.

Why is it fair for people to breed uncontrollably and expect others to sustain them and their brood?

brood, really? that is what you call children? you sure you're a socialist and not a confused conservative or libertarian?

[Evo2]

You arguing against a dead point

Read up, I was wrong

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

You arguing against a dead point

Read up, I was wrong

Did my previous post have any bearing on your decision?

[Evo2]

Did my previous post have any bearing on your decision?

Yours and others

[erupt]

Ask these people you speak of if they could do their "dream jobs", or "favorite things to do" and get recognized in society for it, therefore giving input.

Another major, overlooked point, in a sufficed sentence, is life on these benefits is not easy-living; it's far from it. No matter how much they get it's not like they have the money, better yet, power, that the elites enjoy.

[Klaatu]

In my country, wales/UK I know many people who get pregnant to receive housing and money taken from taxes


How would socialism eliminate this practice? Would reproduction have to be socially controlled?

People that are good at raising kids (it takes a certain talent and patience) can be gainfully employed as day-care workers. If they like to raise kids, they can be useful to society as teachers and guidance counselors, as well as disciplinarians. The taxes can pay their incomes. That is, they can return their labor to the community, via their work, as community child care.

People that have children must have a knack for raising them, or they would have probably used birth control.