Socialism

[DaComm]

Recently I heard a critic of Socialism say something along the lines of "if everyone has equal wealth, what is to prevent universal laziness?". I forget what the counter-argument isto this, I've read/heard it before though. A little help?

[x371322]

The critic is wrong. Socialism is not equal wealth. Socialism rewards those who work. Capitalism steals from those who work.

[The Ben G]

Socialism is opportunity while capitalism gives you a chance at one.

I agree with Czad. Only those who work should be rewarded.

[syndicat]

well, you see, people don't agree on what "socialism" means. if it means that all the means of production are owned by everyone, then, in that sense, it does mean equal wealth becuase no one owns "wealth", that is, income producing assets. maybe the questioner assumes equal income or equal power. This will depend on which socialist you talk to. I think power and pay rates should be equal. What's the motivation for work in that case? Two-fold. First, because able-bodied adults are expected to work. Your personal remuneration depends on you're doing so. secondly, because there are various things we all want to have...the things that you consume or use. How are these things going to exist if we don't work? We don't want able-bodied people to be parasites living off of others. And why would others be willing to produce for you if they don't have to, if they have equal power in society? In capitalism capital owners don't have to work because they own, but in socialism that parasitism isn't allowed.

[Muzk]

Another problem of the left nowadays: same words for different meanings. I'll stick to the one Marx introduced.

You should do that too.

Oh and you need time to explain socialism.

_________________
as for the thread, this is the answer:

"According to this, bourgeois society ought long ago to have gone to the dogs through sheer idleness; for those of its members who work acquire nothing, and those who acquire anything do not work."

[Raightning]

Recently I heard a critic of Socialism say something along the lines of "if everyone has equal wealth, what is to prevent universal laziness?". I forget what the counter-argument isto this, I've read/heard it before though. A little help?
To be more specific: socialism isn't about just distributing wealth regardless of work, for one. No revolutionary leftist proposes just taking all the wealth and doling it out equally; we propose taking all wealth into a collective ownership. Onto the point, though, and we'll tackle socialism and communism in its theoretical, Marxist form.

Socialism is (among other things) about ensuring that anyone who wants to work can work, and that people are rewarded for their work and nothing else - this differs from capitalism, which is quite happy to see people gain wealth without actually having to work for it, or have extremely different rates for the same level (in terms of skills and actual work) of labour.

Socialism is of course merely a transitionary phase however; the ultimate goal is communism, and the realisation of the idea "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". I'm a little more hazy on how to counter the argument at this level, though.

One thing you can point out specifically against their 'universal laziness' argument is this: if we get an universal laziness as we suggest, then the quantity and quality of goods produced decreases. Everyone loses out from such a system, and thus there is a social and economic pressure to restore production.

It's a bit bizarre, really, because most cappies go on about 'rational self-interest' when the universal laziness argument is based on the complete rejection of that same 'rational self-interest'. But I digress.

For the record, if someone you're arguing this with then moves onto "well, individuals will be lazy or corrupt or violent and will undermine the system!" (because he probably will), then there are a few points you could make. The most utopian has to be that communism will abolish scarcity and make it unnecessary; you could also point out that people are to a large extent moulded by their upbringings, and a communist society would not have the same greed that defines capitalist society for instance.

They probably won't accept that, though, so you'll probably need to work more on his level. More practically, point out that a person does not exist as an isolated, separate unit; there will be social and economic pressures on them to ensure they don't just break the system. Also, note that a practical communist society will operate according to a certain maxim, but it isn't completely bound by it. If someone just plain refuses to work when they're able, the society can exclude them from itself.

[Wobblie]

Like what Syndicat said, it will depend on which socialist/communist/anarchist you ask. From my perspective in the lower phase of communism, usually referred to as socialism, you will receive back from society what you contribute in labor. A job will be guaranteed to each individual, therefore if you do not work it is not because the market left you out but because you have decided not to work. Laziness is the product of the capitalist system, which prizes doing as little amount of work for as much money as possible. During the lower phase, and eventually the higher phase of communism, the incentives will run differently. Labor will became a positive aspect of one's life, since we are doing it because we want to rather than because we have to, see Marx's theory on the alienation of labor. And the products of our labor will belong to all of us rather than a hand full of people who contribute little to nothing positive to society, and many time are actually a destructive force.

In reality the whole argument is a straw man tactic. The system that actually institutionalizes unemployment is capitalism. In the U.S. the Federal Reserve makes sure that the unemployment level never reaches below 5~4%. This creates situations where poverty is institutionalized in society, where whole segments of the population are disenfranchised by lesser access to education, good neighborhoods, health care, and of course jobs.

[syndicat]

you will receive back from society what you contribute in labor

that's a problematic formula, tho. what about the retired, people unable to work, children, people who for whom society has not been able to provide jobs or between jobs. do we want to say you must buy everything yourself, including health care?

there's another problem with the formula. because of differences in technology and skill and a lot of other things not related to your own effort, the output from a person's work will vary from one person to another. but if this is not due to their effort being different, why should they be paid differently? productivity depends on social investment in various ways.

usually revolutionaries think that there should be at least some large set of things that are provided through collective social provision, independently of ability to pay, such as free health care, free education.

people want to contribute, they want esteem in the eyes of others, and they do earn a share of the social product by their work. and the more productive we are, the more we all have or the more free time we have.

[Wobblie]

that's a problematic formula, tho. what about the retired, people unable to work, children, people who for whom society has not been able to provide jobs or between jobs. do we want to say you must buy everything yourself, including health care?

I figured it would be assumed that children, the elderly, and disabled persons would not be required to work, sorry for not specifying that. And of course I do believe that housing, health care, education, child care, etc. are human rights and a price should not be put on them.


there's another problem with the formula. because of differences in technology and skill and a lot of other things not related to your own effort, the output from a person's work will vary from one person to another. but if this is not due to their effort being different, why should they be paid differently? productivity depends on social investment in various ways.

I didn't mention productivity in my post. I just mentioned the amount of labor contributed, which doesn't translate to productivity. The scale for how persons are paid for their labor is something I think the workers will decide once we are in control of the mode of production. But bourgeoisie right will not just vanish from society, we will need to transition from it to the mind set that communism supports.


usually revolutionaries think that there should be at least some large set of things that are provided through collective social provision, independently of ability to pay, such as free health care, free education.
I agree, as stated above. I thought this would be assumed and didn't feel the need to outline that specifically, my apologies.


people want to contribute, they want esteem in the eyes of others, and they do earn a share of the social product by their work. and the more productive we are, the more we all have or the more free time we have.

I agree, and don't see anything in what I wrote that would speak to the contrary.

[syndicat]

okay, then maybe you mean workers and their families would receive collectively the total social product, minus investment in means of production, leaving it open as to how we would decide on distributing each person a share based on their labor.

[Wobblie]

okay, then maybe you mean workers and their families would receive collectively the total social product, minus investment in means of production, leaving it open as to how we would decide on distributing each person a share based on their labor.

I think that is a good way to put it, but I would emphasize that it would be the workers themselves deciding the scale used to measure the contribution of labor and not some outside organ of power.

[Robocommie]

Socialism is like a potluck dinner, you make a dish of food, and then you bring it to the potluck and you get to try a little of everyone else's food as well as your own, and everyone eats well.

Capitalism is like a potluck dinner where you make a dish of food and bring it to the potluck, and everyone gets to have a little bit of the food they made themselves, and then the guy who organized the thing gets to keep all of the rest - even if he could never eat all of it himself.

[syndicat]

I think that is a good way to put it, but I would emphasize that it would be the workers themselves deciding the scale used to measure the contribution of labor and not some outside organ of power.

okay but the system needs to have some principle here, as it affects allocation of resources to production groups. we could say for example that we're remunerating hours worked and give work collectives a pool, or we could say we're remunerating the effort and sacrifice expended, but then we'd need some way to figure out how to allocate consumption credit pools to different work groups. the "we" here is the whole society, through its hopefully grassroots democratic decision-making bodies.