Hacker News Reader

Comment by cloutchaser | Hacker News Reader

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?

View on HN

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

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.

"you have to work a little"

It can easily be benefit for example if you work 1/8 time for 1/2 of pay.

> 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?

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.

> Work should not be a requirement to live a comfortable life.

_Someone else_ will we working to give you a comfortable life.

> _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.

Yes this is why anything to do with ai should be open source. It can be too powerful in the hands of bad actors.

> Yes this is why anything to do with ai should be open source. It can be too powerful in the hands of bad actors

Maybe read your sentence again. Carefully...

By being open source = democratising

Bad actors start using ai to do bad things. Good actors use ai to counter bad actors.

Or is that not what you meant?

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.

> In fact a lot (most?) people who call themselves socialist these days don't even like Stalin.

That could also be because he was a murderous dictator, and not necessarily have anything to do with his economic ideas. (Although some of his economic ideas, and they way they were implemented in particular, lead to lots of death too.)

... 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.

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

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.

In USSR you couldn't own much, thus rent-seeking was not possible.

House ownership was limited per-square-meter (varies on exact period and location). Most rooms/apartments were technically state property and you just rented them. Building „cooperative“ apartments where one would own it was a rather late development. And even then I believe limits of apartments-to-own were in place.

On the other hand, room-renting was tolerated in two cases. Resorts (no enough spots in hotels) and university towns (no enough places in dormitories). In resorts locals would move to, for example, garages to make money from renting their own apartments to holiday goers. Students renting was usually old lady business where after your kids are gone and husband dies you rent spare rooms.

> 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?

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?

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?

Capital doesn’t “work”. People work. These are just objective English language definitions. What you’re saying is simply nonsensical. Can you try explaining again?

Wrt “earning capital,” you may have purchased capital, but you sold your labor for wages.

Compensation paid as stock options are an exception, and are a result of New Deal reforms to get more working people bought into the capitalist system, which has been successful, so far. But owning stocks is not the same as owning capital because you still do not control the capital and therefore cannot collect rents. Realize capitalists never directly trade the capital for the labor to operate that capital, unless forced. Historically, only communists have ever forced such a thing.

As strange as it may seem, the us also has a system that respects the rights of people who want to be homeless nomads.

If people want to be homeless due to mental health issues, there is no easy way out if the government is allowed to overrule someone who says ‘No! Don’t help me!’

Very difficult ethical issues all around.

In our area, we have shelter beds open and people sleeping in the cold outside of the building…

How do you explain the astronomical numbers of homeless people in the US, for example, compared with so many other wealthy nations?

Are you seriously suggesting that so many millions of Americans just happen to love being homeless? Is this a joke?

> Are you seriously suggesting that so many millions of Americans just happen to love being homeless? Is this a joke?

The person you're replying to didn't say any such things. Your replies on this post have followed a pattern of lazy swipes, and degrade the quality of discussion here.

My replies have followed a pattern of logical deduction and clarifying inquiry. Can you answer my questions?

It was difficult to be rentier in USSR because it was officially forbidden to "own" even 2 apartments at the same time.

Those are some impressive mental gymnastics.

Regardless, the USSR was heavy on the “you don’t carry the water, you don’t drink”.

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.

>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?

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.

> 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

Reply on news.ycombinator.com