No can do. Technology makes us more efficient while the population continues to grow. With every passing year full employment only because less feasible. We're going to have to learn to devalue employment in ways most modern people probably can't even imagine.
Unless you're okay with continually reducing the amount of hours people work without reducing their pay, or making up an endless variety of trivial useless jobs. But the former is obviously just a move toward welfare if not welfare itself, and the latter is simply a pointless inefficiency.
I dont think that we'd ever run out of work to do really MP, I'm not talking industrial level production or productivity here what about make everywhere a garden city or any of those dreams? They'd all take someone carrying out the work, although those could be, comparatively, the trivial jobs you're talking about, I dont know.
Still it could be a matter of freeing individuals to be productive within their own spheres of influence of what they wish to do, although I dont know how that would look, and there are people who would be hopeless at managing the free time and lack of direction involved in that. There's plenty of people already who're alcoholics because of the availability of welfare money to allow them to subsist.
The main thing to remember is that the political elite live in a bubble; politicians rely on journalist and journalist rely on politicians. One should hedge one's news to reliable sources. Avoid following shock jocks like Glenn Beck nor equally dubious documentation by social critics like Michael Moore. Study about political ideology and history. Do not define one's political views by an idea but by logic. Remember what works in one country will not necessarily work somewhere else. Read investigative journalism by people who are intelligent and make one think even if they don't agree with them like Bob Woodward and John Pilger. Read The Economist. Listen to the BBC World Service.
Originally Posted by Thalassa
Oh our 3rd person reference to ourselves denotes nothing more than we realize we are epic characters on the forum.
Narcissism, plain and simple.
The ultimate in bizarre: a cross between an ostrich, a gorilla, and Edward Scissorhands.
(its about Burnham but read down and there is a long piece about The Managerial Revolution, ironically its linked to the wikis on communism, Burnham became an arch neo-con when he decided it was a matter of choosing between one manipulative elite and another and decided that the capitalists could party harder or some shit).
And probably the most important book on the list:-
Its just business. No, seriously, it just is. Ever wonder about that phrase? Its because the serious survival of capitalism in the US or anyplace else has usually been linked with its being criminal, or at least, willing to become very violent and employ vey illiberal tactics to ensure its survival and prosperity. Globalisation and just about any time there is a failed state gives the seriously organised criminal element a shot in the arm, the nigerians, the chechians, the albanians.
Problems of bureaucracy and law and order dont register on a lot of political ideologies radars, those that do usually evade the issue by suggesting it is not a character of their favoured schemas or more a character of their opponents schemas, the same goes for crime, suggesting it wont be a problem because you'll legalise everything is not really an indication that you've seriously considered it.
Also, I love digging out a good historical source, read whatever you can on the topic of socialism by John Spargo, he was an excellent American writer but eventually gave up on socialism and became a republican because of the state of most socialists and how little they heeded his warnings about the Bolsheviks in Russia.
Spargo is an excellent example of how decent books and writers disappear down what Orwell caled the "memory hole", there's no need for censorship when things are forgotten, dont need to burn the books when they simply go out of circulation and then out of print.
Reading Spargo and other books on the topic of socialism in some of the reprints which are available on Amazon (some of them are not good and they are not inexpensive either, even though they are not good and generally are facsimile editions) its not hard to see that the reasoning and writing was very good, at least as good as any of the opposition still in print in popular editions such as Mallock or Le Bon, and it seems less the case that past generations were naive or lost their minds and were easily taken in (which is the conceit of the present about the past).
I know what I value, but I don't know what is best for the country. Well, not everything.
I have trouble with this, too. It's why I try not to get involved in political debates; I become quickly aware of the fact that nothing I come up with will solve every problem -- and it will add a problem for every problem it removes -- which can often either paralyze me or reduce me to arguing purely on moral grounds, which is a BAD IDEA!
So what I've done is said that I'm for essentially what J.S. Mill wants, i.e. maximum happiness and well-being for the majority of the population. However, I don't think that extreme wealth and extreme poverty balance each other out -- not just for the obvious reasons, but also because statistics show that happiness increases with wealth only until about $150,000 a year (?ish? I remembered that it was either the upper end of upper middle class, or the lower end of wealthy, so don't quote me on that exact stat), and above that income people become less happy. And although people can fight all they want about what constitutes happiness and what sort of happiness is worth having, I can guarantee that people are always happier when they are healthy, fed, clothed, and housed. And they are especially happy (or at least, not unhappy) when they don't have to worry constantly about having enough money to live on.
I recognize the issue of possibly rewarding/encouraging laziness, as several have mentioned earlier in the thread -- but that's one instance of where, like I said before, I become paralyzed because I can't think of a way to fix that problem that will still provide for everyone's basic needs. I'm very open to other people's arguments on what methods would be better -- but if anyone tells me that all/most poor people are poor because they don't work hard, then I will NOT be open to your point of view, because it doesn't mesh well with my moral code (or my religious beliefs, or even my life experience), and therefore rubs me the wrong way.
Edit: @Peguy and @Lark, I'll check out those links momentarily.
Another edit: Some of what I've just read about Liberation Theology does resonate with me -- but I think that the political views of my parents, the church I grew up in, and also the school I currently attend (which is Jesuit-affiliated), has a lot to do with that. And as for Anglo-Catholic Socialism: same. However, I feel like both of them are a bit more liberal than I am; I agree that capitalism is flawed and unequal but at the same time I don't presume to know what would fix that -- and I'm not sure what would happen if it would all be overthrown for something entirely new and different.