La_Dolce_Vita Posted February 14, 2010 Share Posted February 14, 2010 i reckon some people wouldn't know what to do with the extra free timeOut of having never had it before or because they have no interests or imagination? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aimeejulia Posted February 14, 2010 Share Posted February 14, 2010 i reckon some people wouldn't know what to do with the extra free timeOut of having never had it before or because they have no interests or imagination? a bit of both maybe... I never seem to have enough time but would love to paint, read and relax a bit more Would be great to work less but get paid the same amount I know people who have free time and all they do is sleep, I've encouraged them to do volunteering or take up a hobby but they never seem too interested in anything Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Ayres Posted February 14, 2010 Share Posted February 14, 2010 The whole idea of a 40 hr week didn't exist 150 yrs ago. You worked enough to survive and put something away for the winter. Come the industrial revolution capitalism conspired to enslave the workers and control their output to one that was profitable but at the same time not allowing the accumulation of reserves that would allow for fallow times. We've only known paid sickness and holidays for about 60 yrs, before then it was work until you drop and pay for the doctor to visit. Too poor? die. Is it time to take back the means of production and distribution that enslave you to the capitalist system? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojomonkey Posted February 14, 2010 Share Posted February 14, 2010 The whole idea of a 40 hr week didn't exist 150 yrs ago. You worked enough to survive and put something away for the winter. Come the industrial revolution capitalism conspired to enslave the workers and control their output to one that was profitable but at the same time not allowing the accumulation of reserves that would allow for fallow times. We've only known paid sickness and holidays for about 60 yrs, before then it was work until you drop and pay for the doctor to visit. Too poor? die.Is it time to take back the means of production and distribution that enslave you to the capitalist system? Have you been hanging round with La Dolce Vita again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted February 14, 2010 Share Posted February 14, 2010 I know it's the Isle of Man, but do you think I am the only one who has socialist views? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbms Posted February 14, 2010 Share Posted February 14, 2010 I know it's the Isle of Man, but do you think I am the only one who has socialist views? So now you admit to giving up anarchism for socialism Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted February 14, 2010 Share Posted February 14, 2010 Anarchism is socialism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted February 14, 2010 Share Posted February 14, 2010 Would be great to work less but get paid the same amount All relative isn't it? If everyone worked less and therefore earned less, many things would be cheaper. Particularly the things that take large chunks of your salary like rent or mortgages. The other part of the story doesn't really touch us so much on the Island, but if everyone works 20% less, theres 20% more work out there which will reduce unemployment and therefore spread the money around a bit more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manshimajin Posted February 14, 2010 Share Posted February 14, 2010 if everyone works 20% less, theres 20% more work out there which will reduce unemployment and therefore spread the money around a bit more. But with a 21 hour week that also means that everyone is earning say 21/40ths of what they used to. So whilst it would spread money around everyone more thinly they would have a lot less money to spend on non-essentials. This would certainly reduce consumprion and it would also reduce employment opportunities that are driven by people buying things or going out for meals etc...works OK if your aim is to reduce consumption and hence CO2 emissions but not great if the idea is to create more employment opportunities to be shared around - it would reduce them. The 21/40ths of current earnings would have to be allocated to paying for essential survival costs such as food, clothing and utilities. Forget holidays, mortgages, cars, little luxuries. Shared work would not reduce the unit costs of goods just the capacity to pay for them. The impact on the housing market for example would be 'interesting' as it would slash house prices in one fell swoop as very few people would be able to afford to pay mortgages and to feed, clothe and educate their families - maybe a good thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gazza Posted February 14, 2010 Author Share Posted February 14, 2010 At the end of the day it should be up to the person how many hours they work, But i dont mind if they make companys work a 21h week, because i will be able to work 60-80 hours and take all that extra work that is about because caompanys can not fit it all in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aimeejulia Posted February 14, 2010 Share Posted February 14, 2010 if you try working in the catering industry you might are able to regular how many hours you work by altering your availability and because you're paid by the hour technically you can work as much as you want or as many shifts are available in malta you can easily do up to 70hrs a week in summer not too sure if they have an restrictions here the pay if crap as well so you need quite a lot of hours for a decent amount of money Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbms Posted February 15, 2010 Share Posted February 15, 2010 Anarchism is socialism. Really? Anarchism is a political philosophy encompassing theories and attitudes which consider the state to be unnecessary, harmful, or otherwise undesirable, and favour instead a stateless society or anarchy. Individual anarchists may have additional criteria for what they conceive to be anarchism, and there is often broad disagreement concerning these broader conceptions. Socialism refers to the various theories of economic organization advocating common or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with a method of compensation based on the amount of labor expended. Socialism is a political structure intended to equalise disparate economic groups, whereas Anarchy eschews any semlance of government. In its original Greek, the word literally means "without a ruler" - an(without)archy(from archon, meaning 'ruler'). There are fundamental differences. The main is the party. Anarchists are against forming a political party; Socialists say the working class needs a political party to lead the struggle against capitalism. Seems even you are not clear on your convictions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tempus Fugit Posted February 15, 2010 Share Posted February 15, 2010 don't you think that reducing to 21hrs would just mean everyone had 2 jobs so you're back where you started either that or there would be ten times the number of odd-jobbers available and maybe Richmond Hill would be finished in 42 84 weeks (or maybe 21 weeks !) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted February 15, 2010 Share Posted February 15, 2010 Jimbms - Yeah! Really! You don't really have much of a clue. Socialism is as you mention - they advocate worker control of the means of production and resources. And the branches of this are communism and anarchism. However, beginning in the late 19th century some socialists came to the unfortunate conclusion that the only way to effect change and reach a stage where workers could control the means of production was by participating in the bourgeous institutions of state, i.e. form a party and govern, in the hope of effecting reform. You're are mistaken when it comes to recognising what socialism is because you believe it refers to those who call themselves socialists simply by supporting some aspects of workplace reform and association with the union. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbms Posted February 15, 2010 Share Posted February 15, 2010 Jimbms - Yeah! Really! You don't really have much of a clue. Socialism is as you mention - they advocate worker control of the means of production and resources. And the branches of this are communism and anarchism. However, beginning in the late 19th century some socialists came to the unfortunate conclusion that the only way to effect change and reach a stage where workers could control the means of production was by participating in the bourgeous institutions of state, i.e. form a party and govern, in the hope of effecting reform. You're are mistaken when it comes to recognising what socialism is because you believe it refers to those who call themselves socialists simply by supporting some aspects of workplace reform and association with the union. If you say so, I suppose there are times when the opinions on at least 6 experts where I got my info from can be wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.