Social Security in communism?!

[BeginnerRevolutionary]

One of the problems facing America is the running out of social security. Around 2018 I think it is, America is going to start going into debt in order to keep providing social security benefits.

What would happen in a communis society?

If it is from each's ability according to their need, once someone eventually becomes old enough to where they can no longer work, what happens to them? If they no longer provide for the commune or society, would they still be supported according to their need?

I think the same question would apply towards those that may be unable to work even while young. Including but not limited to handicapped, amputees, etc.

Would it be a similar instance to a person, in a communist society, that simply chooses not to work? Some clarification would be helpful as to where the line is drawn...

[pandora]

This is not true, according to social security, there would be no problems for 37 years with full payments, and then just small adjustments are help from the governnment would be needed. Quite impressive when you consider it has been running independent of other taxes and provides the bulk of retirement.

In Communism eventually we would not be running on a monetary system so the whole design would be different. For me a focus on communities would be completely different. Elderly would not be treated the way they are currently, but others can be more specific on how Communism treats the elderly and disabled so I will let them instruct you.

[MysticArcher]

What would happen in a communis society?

Since you're not producing enormous amounts of goods to try to make a profit people will have more time to take care of old people

and when you think about it age really doesn't disqualify you from work. In chemistry today for example the professor talked about this chemist (I forget his name, he's famous for breakthroughs in boron chemistry) who is still publishing 10 or 15 papers a year at age 90

I think that's pretty impressive. I won't claim everyone could do that, but the cases where a person could do absolutely nothing helpful to the community are rare, I'd say mostly limited to certain diseases and neurological conditions

As for disabled people, like I said people would have more time to take care of them and hopefully science can come up with some ways to help them (for example genetic causes for problems will probably be cut down as biotechnology increases)

[Ligeia]

Does that mean that everyone who wants to take care of a disabled or an person who has an cerebral disease which happens often when you become old(of course there are people who become 90 and can still think normally)can do that?I visited once a social service for old and disabled people(who lived at home so that the nurses had to drive to their homes)and I got the impression that there are some diseases where you have to take care of this people the whole day long(except when they sleep)and I suppose that someone who has such an ill person in the family cant work or do what he/she wants to do in freetime except of taking care.But maybe the people will be so changed in their mind and ideas that they all around them are keen to help but to help those people you need to study medicine and other sciences.So wont there be any hospitals/or just houses where you can ask for help in such cases?

[patrickbeverley]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 05:07 PM
Around 2018 I think it is, America is going to start going into debt in order to keep providing social security benefits.
I think the state would be better able to provide these benefits if they increased the tax rate for high earners like us lefties have been telling them to do for years.

[NovelGentry]

Yeah, or maybe if we didn't have a shit bourgeois congress that passes bills to tap into it for warmongering. Now Bush wants to take what's in social security and invest it in companies, so that is rises and falls with the economy, but so that we can always have surplus there so long as companies are gaining.

AKA: He wants to contribute to corporation's profitmongering.

In response to the general thread:

Communism IS "social" "security."

[bolshevik butcher]

surley the state would be taking care of everyones needs. So what would be the need in social security?

[Guest1]

Umm... there is no state under communism.

From each according to their abilities implies that when you reach a certain age, what is expected of you falls to zero. If you wanna contribute, great, but you've contributed enough that you can just take it easy and stop what little work you've been doing throughout your life (as communist society trends towards abolishing most work all together).

You'll get what you need, and be free to do what you want. And of course there will be people whose job it is to provide care if you need it.

[Super Mario Conspiracy]

If they no longer provide for the commune or society, would they still be supported according to their need?

Of course they would. How would children get what they need when they're still young and unable to work? Their families would get what they need in other words. Just like old people. I'm not quite sure how this would happen, but an alternate point is that the old stay at home together with their families, and just like children, are taken cared of by the families themselves.

Just like disabled people who are unable to work, sometimes even move, normally, would have to be taken care of. They could be like that for the rest of their lives - and since socialism (and all branches under it) are all for the human, I'm sure we would come up with something. After all, we're not fascists, we're humans.


Would it be a similar instance to a person, in a communist society, that simply chooses not to work? Some clarification would be helpful as to where the line is drawn...

In socialism, people would not have as many working hours as we have today. Mainly because everyone is employed, no one is left behind. Then, consider all the technological achievements that man has invented, and that has helped us with our work. Yes, socialism works as a "pyramid"-structure on a time scale (idealistically).

Go back 100 years, and you find yourself at the bottom of the pyramid, in other words, everything was done by one man or another. Go forth 50 years, and we have machines that can move huge but more stable objects, machines that can carry cement or sand in one move what 100 people would do in one day. Move to our time, and you discover that impossibly huge or complex structures can be drawn on the computer screen in under one hour, complete with rooms and mapping of every screw in the construction, what experts from all over the world would do in one year.

People are going to "loose their jobs" in the future. Ever seen "I,Robot"? Well, it made me think of something. Imagine that we created robots, like in "I,Robot" in the near future - what would this mean?

In a capitalist system it could either mean destruction or dystopia - most probably the first one. People are going to be without jobs, while the robots can do work hundreds of time better that humans (at least physical work), and with no pay - a corporates wet dream.

In capitalism, you would be thrown out on the street with a maximum of 10 bux, and with a "sorry, ts' the best I can do". You will develop anger, hate, maybe even become a criminal. You will not only hate the dude that threw you out on the streets, but the robots and machines as well.

In a socialist society, you would be even more happy than you already are. These robots can accelerate the growth of the community, do things much faster and maybe better (again, mostly hard physical work).

See the difference? In out systems today, introducing robots are a step closer to fascism and stronger capitalism, a world with increased hate and anger, and much more crime. In socialism, introducing robots are a step closer to Utopia.

[Livetrueordie]

I know this thread is old but this is an interesting article, about Social Security
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story...sion=6.0.11.847 (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/_/id/6822964?rnd=1108345234406&has-player=true&version=6.0.11.847)