Why Socialism would never work

[777]

I recently came across this question. I suppose it is a common one:


For all socialists that may exsist I would like to give all proof as to why socialism in its purist form can never exsist. especially in a world of humans. perhaps it is a socialist society in heaven.. who knows!?

here is the proof:

Jon lives in a socialist society. He is of age and decides to work to get an income. He looks at the newpapers and there is a job offer to become a doctor and another to work at a fast food restuarant making hamburgers. to become a doctor he must go to a university for many years and work hard to become skillful in his job. and to flip hamburgers he does not need any knowledge. in a socialist society income is equal in all professions. Jon decides to become a hamburger flipper because it is easy. why would jon want to work hard for the same income/pay as someone doing far less?? the answer is he doesnt. therefore no one has a drive to work hard because there is no better result or reward for hard work. if all citizens of this socialist society are faced with thes same question.. judging on humanity.. how many do you think would have chose to flip hamburgers? how many would work hard for the same pay as a hamburger flipper?

i think the answer is clear. socialism is a utopian idealogy that is impossible in a society of humans.

My initial response was, "well man is naturally creative and industrious", but I don't think that fits the bill. When I started thinking about it it opened up a lot of questions. I suspect this question is coming from a misconception.

Any ideas?

[CommunityBeliever]

to become a doctor he must go to a university for many years and work hard to become skillful in his job. and to flip hamburgers he does not need any knowledge.

In our socialist society I expect everybody will go to a university for a few years just as everybody now goes to high school, in part because the universities will be free of charge and run by the community.
We will develop the machinery to automatically flip hamburgers so that job will be unnecessary anyways.
The whole philosophy of acquiring wealth, the "American Dream", and the goal of becoming bourgeoisie will be destroyed so people will have other incentives in socialist society besides the monetary one. (eg. helping/healing people)


why would jon want to work hard for the same income/pay as someone doing far less??Good question. Ask your friend there "why would jon want to work hard to become a doctor if he could work hard to exploit people and therefore become a bourgeoisie property owner?" If his only goal is money he would go after private property and exploiting workers to become bourgeoisie, he wouldn't spend all that time helping people as a doctor. As a bourgeoisie, you work way way less then doctors and other jobs and make way more, so you should point out:

Hard work != $$$ in capitalist society


therefore no one has a drive to work hard because there is no better result or reward for hard work.There is no reward in capitalist society for hard work, that is unless you count "dont starve" as a reward. On the other hand, in socialist society people will be able to be rewarded in a far more meritorious manner, that is people will be able to actually make money based on how much hard work they do instead of how much capital they possess.


how many do you think would have chose to flip hamburgers?Nobody wants to flip burgers! It is menial, demeaning and humiliating! Not to mention boring.

Nobody is going to say to themselves "I want to spend the rest of my life flipping burgers", most people have other goals for themselves then that. Since this task is menial and undesirable, we would just develop machines to do it instead of making people do it.

[Comrade Awesome]

I usually just point out that Cuba, a 'socialist' nation leads the world in doctors per capita.

http://strangemaps.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/276540-poster594x420mm_eng.jpg

[Peace on Earth]

First off, in a socialist society, before a communist society, pay would not neccessarily be equal for all jobs. It would be based on hours, degree of difficulty, etc.

Now, not specifically using "John," but how many people actually want to spend their lives flipping burgers? Regardless of pay, I know what I want to do with my life. If I was guarenteed enough to live, I would do it for free. The reward for working hard is personal.

[jake williams]

- In socialism wages aren't necessarily equal. One of the more onerous tasks that doctors can have to deal with is working long hours and spending a lot of time on call. In a socialist society workers are given wages based on the amount people work (and possibly their productivity, effort, etc.), not on the basis of the lowest amount possible that capitalists can pay workers.

- In a socialist society, education, especially to become a doctor, isn't just free of financial costs - it's strongly encouraged.

- It's much more enjoyable and fulfilling to be a doctor than it is to be a burger flipper. Frankly I think the more important concern for socialists is to find ways to make necessary but menial tasks, such as many kinds of housework, industrial manufacturing, and waste management - as opposed to jobs that allow for a lot of creativity, like being a doctor or a professor - more enjoyable and empowering, and less alienating.

[Paulappaul]

in a socialist society income is equal in all professions.

This is Bullshit. In cooperative labor, the worker receives directly what he puts into production. There is no "equal wages" in Marxist Socialism.

"It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment and thus productive capacity as natural privileges. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right.”---Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Program

[Ravachol]

What does anything in that quote have to do with socialism, let alone communism? :blink:

[JazzRemington]

This is faulty for several reasons:

1) As typical of people critiquing socialism/anarchism/communism, etc., it relies on a story (read: fairy tale) as its main argument.

2) There's no justification for socialism being "everyone is paid equally." It seems the entire argument (read: fairy tale) is based on a misconception.

3) The person who thought up this poppycock has no idea about medical practitioners. The vast majority are over-worked and underpaid - especially considering they have tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of dollars of student loans they have to pay back. Most physicians are in the same boat as people that flip burgers: they barely have enough money for themselves, especially after they start paying back student loans. Most of the time, the money isn't even the real reason people become doctors. The only ones who really make any good money are private practice doctors - who are a minority.

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

Firstly, communists favor the abolition of money and the state when doing so becomes possible. The argument is really against state-run economies where the incomes are more-or-less evenly divided among the professions. The poeple in such societies don't get exactly the same wages, but the differences really are quite small.

The argument you bring up has it that nobody would then want to become a doctor. We know that this is false because there are more doctors in Cuba, relative to the size of the population, than there are in the United States.

The argument thus evidently fails to describe the real world, although naive supporters of capitalism continue echoing it.

Why does it fail? Because it comes with false presuppositions that are left unstated, but are built into the argument as its support.

The chief error of this "argument" is the underlying assumption that people are only driven to do the work they do because of how much money they get at the end of the day. Let us suppose that something really is "harder" just because it requires more knowledge or education. What about the immaterial rewards, like being able to enjoy more pleasant or more intellectually stimulating working conditions? What about the satisfaction of doing the work best suited to your aptitude? Don't plenty of people prefer intellectual work? What about the self-respect and the admiration of other people that comes with doing your best?

Of course, that something is "harder" just because it requires more knowledge or education is one more thing we have just taken for granted: yes, the doctor spends a lot more time going through the process of becoming educated and puts in a lot more at school. But let's fast-forward a decade: now, at the end of the day, who's working harder? A doctor or a manual laborer with his blue collar and his trusty shovel? The burger-flipper is still standing on his feet and flippin' away in the hot area behind the burger counter. Maybe even he's working a lot harder?

But that's just the incentives -- and there also is an opposite side of the coin.

Doesn't capitalist society also create disincentives by forcing medical students to pay for their many years of studies out of their own pocket? If so, this obviously compels some of the people interested in medicine from realizing their ambitions: instead, they pursue more "lucrative" lines of work in areas like law or the stock market. By contrast, Cuba's medical education is free to everyone who demonstrates the aptitude required to pursue medical studies. Therefore, more people who would like to become doctors actually get the chance.

[Ele'ill]

I don't know if it was mentioned yet or not but most people don't become doctors because of the money- even in a capitalist arena. They become doctors to horde debt and help people overcome life threatening illness.

I'd imagine it starts with an interest in medicine and medical procedure.

[La Comédie Noire]

I don't think we'll have burger flippers and fast food restaurants in a classless society. People who genuinely enjoy cooking will undertake it and believe me I've worked with quite a few cooks in fast food joints, who love nothing more than giving customers something different.

[fa2991]

My answer via sarcastic rephrasing:



For all socialists that may exist I would like to give all proof as to why socialism in its purist form can never exsist. especially in a world of humans. perhaps it is a socialist society in heaven.. who knows!?

here is the proof:

Jon lives in a socialist society. He is of age and decides to work to get an income. He looks at the newpapers and there is a job offer to save lives and become a heroic, admirable member of his community and another flipping hamburgers. to become a useful lifesaver requires a few years of effort followed by a lifetime of self-fulfillment. to do something anyone could do and that doesn't make him feel special or fulfilled, he does not need any knowledge. in a socialist society income is equal in all professions. Jon decides that he wants to spend his entire life doing a job that is smelly, dirty, and relatively unfulfilling that will probably be obsolete in a few years thanks to advances in technology instead of saving lives after a few years of free schooling and housing because, like all humans, Jon does not want to be fulfilled, useful, happy, or necessary.

therefore socialism cannot work.

[leftace53]

Why is John choosing between becoming a doctor and a burger flipper? Surely there are more than two jobs that need to be done in society.

In a communist society, John can do whatever the hell he wants for work, because he doesn't have to worry about "survival". He can focus on doing what brings him the most fulfillment, whether that be baking or rocket science.

[Apoi_Viitor]

http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pink_on_motivation.html

Looks like man is "naturally creative and industrious".

[IndependentCitizen]

I sure as hell hope in a socialist/communist world that no one would be flipping burgers because fast food restaurants would be destroyed. Healthy eating will be promoted for the good of the land, people's and animal's sake.

I also think many people would love to be a doctor because of the ability to help people, and there maybe something new every day.

And I'll be honest, I'd rather have a doctor earn more than me if they work hard, help the people and generally be at service when required. If he or she is saving lives, I think that gives younger people more admiration and motivation to do good with their lives.

[ContrarianLemming]

in a socialist society income is equal in all professions.

wrong

end of debate.

[Red Commissar]

Yeah, I've seen this all the time in different forms. Another comparison has it to a classroom where everyone's grade is curved to an 80 so everyone can succeed.

The biggest lie that the system has spread is that socialism is purely a means of making equality of income and wealth. Additionally it can't break out of the thinking of how their society would look under "socialism", which to these simply means taxes and income adjustment.

It doesn't matter how much one would explain to these people- socialism is more deeper than that, a complete reworking of the economy and the relations within it, the means of production, etc. In fact, if all of these idiots are so focused on "hard work", socialism is the means to best achieve that- a person receives only as much as they contributed to making it.

[fa2991]

wrong

end of debate.

Why?

[ContrarianLemming]

Why?

the anti socialist said that in socialism, income is the same for all professions.

this is not socialism, this is a form of wages which socialists may support, but it's not an intricate part of socialism, socialism is workers control, how wages are determined can vary greatly, we can have market socialism, gift economy socialism, or meritocratic socialism (how long you work, how well you do it).

It's not an argument against socialism since that's not socialism, it's an argument against a form of wages, one which I oppose.

I find almost every opposition to socialism is in this ein however. They usually arn't arguments against socialism, just ideas they think are part of socialism when they are in fact independent.

[Thirsty Crow]

the anti socialist said that in socialism, income is the same for all professions.

this is not socialism, this is a form of wages which socialists may support, but it's not an intricate part of socialism, socialism is workers control, how wages are determined can vary greatly, we can have market socialism, gift economy socialism, or meritocratic socialism (how long you work, how well you do it).

It's not an argument against socialism since that's not socialism, it's an argument against a form of wages, one which I oppose.

I find almost every opposition to socialism is in this ein however. They usually arn't arguments against socialism, just ideas they think are part of socialism when they are in fact independent.This is completely correct.
The basic presupposition of that "critique! is outright false.

[Demogorgon]

The point is easily answered by the fact that it is a hell of a lot more satisfying to be a doctor than a burger flipper.

Ironically I once had this question posed to me in the form of why would anyone choose to be a doctor when it would be easier to be a plumber. I replied that there was a plumber shortage in Scotland before Eastern European plumbers came over to fill the gap and plumbers were actually earning more on average than doctors. People still preferred to train to be doctors (and other highly qualified but lower paid jobs) if they were able.

And being a plumber is actually a job that you can get some satisfaction out of, rather than a job for teenagers like burger flipping. People naturally like satisfying empowering work.

I also love how these people talk about going to University like it is a hardship that deserves higher pay on the end as a reward for having done it. Half the appeal of university is that it is good fun. Either because it is mentally stimulating and satisfying or because of... other reasons. ;)

Okay granted in America there are major University fees that leads to huge debt so you can make a pretty strong argument that University graduates need higher incomes simply to have the same amount of disposable income as non-graduates. That's fair enough in the current American context (though hardly in places where University education is either heavily subsidised or free), but do you think we are going to be charging people an arm and a leg for University education in a socialist society? I think not.

[AK]

I usually just point out that Cuba, a 'socialist' nation leads the world in doctors per capita.

<a big image I won't repost>

Out of curiosity, does that 170:1 ratio include the doctors that the Cuban government sends overseas?

[Demogorgon]

Out of curiosity, does that 170:1 ratio include the doctors that the Cuban government sends overseas?
I would sincerely doubt it. Those are meant to be measurements of doctors per population, Cuban doctors overseas are not treating the cuban population and therefore would count towards the number of doctors in whatever country they end up in.

[Adi Shankara]

Are you kidding? The fact that doctors would only earn what they need is a great thing, because then it'd weed out all the people who are into medicine for the wrong reasons (money, title, etc.) to begin with, thus leaving only people who want to cure the sick! It'd make it so only people who honestly wanted to be doctors to improve the world would remain, not just those who want to charge 200 dollars to stick a Popsicle stick on your tongue.

And besides, it's not like in capitalism, the harder you work, the more money you get (look at that burger joint; you flip 40 burgers an hour, you flip 400 burgers an hour, you still make the same measly wage regardless).

[Kayser_Soso]

The idea fails because why would someone in a socialist society need to be looking in the newspaper to find a job?

[Luisrah]

You just have to turn your friend's (or whoever's) argument against him.
If Jon doesn't want to be a doctor because he thinks it's too hard, or not worth it, and it's better to be a burger flipper, than THAT is the goal that socialism has achieved, in part*.

Why? Because Jon wouldn't be a good doctor, that's why. He doesn't want to cure sick people, he wants something easy, or something that pays a lot.
If in a socialist society (where actually not everyone gets paid the same, which is actually a good thing) everyone gets paid around the same, then there is a higher probability that people will be good at their jobs, because they would have chosen them because of their skill, or because they like it, not because of money.

Taking it to the extreme, a doctor that owns a private clinic doesn't want health, he wants sickness, so that he can work more and get more money.
A doctor that works in a public clinic and doesn't get paid as much is there because he likes to or because he's good at it, and since that's the reason why he is there, he's a much better doctor.

*Why in part? Because it's odd that someone would voluntarily want to be a burger flipper while there are much better jobs a socialist society can offer. In a socialist society where education is free, if someone wants to be a burger flipper, than there's probably something wrong.

In sum, money isn't the only motivation in humans. If it were, then charity wouldn't exist, help for the victims of the earthquake of somewhereland wouldn't either.
In a socialist society, where you can study for free to become a doctor, you can educate yourself, contribute to society, help people in need, you're going to turn that down because it's too hard? You want to become a burger flipper instead? That's not normal.

Not to mention that burger flipping would probably be automatised. Lazyness can actually further advance technology, because you will try to reduce the amount of annoying work you have to do.

[Reznov]

The real question here is, shouldn't Jon want to become a Doctor because he likes to help people/take care of them?

Jon only wants to become a Doctor because he wants money and more of it then other people.

What the fuck happened to Morals in the almighty Capitalist society of America?

[Tavarisch_Mike]

Socialism will end this situation that your friend describes, because it is infact the current capitalist situation your describing. Imagine that jon is a working class guy who wants to become a doctor, but he cant simply afford to pay all the studies, his parents are ofcourse poor and since he went to a school in a so called "trouble area" with little resourcess he never had the change to get the degres he would had if he went to a richer school, so he can forget about the admission to university.
In todays Sweden a lot of people (often females) are going trough the education to become a nurse, yet they would actually getmore money if they got a permanent job at a super market, as many others have pointed out, they are driven by something else then the actuall money (even if that matters).

[syndicat]

Jon lives in a socialist society. He is of age and decides to work to get an income. He looks at the newpapers and there is a job offer to become a doctor and another to work at a fast food restuarant making hamburgers. to become a doctor he must go to a university for many years and work hard to become skillful in his job. and to flip hamburgers he does not need any knowledge. in a socialist society income is equal in all professions. Jon decides to become a hamburger flipper because it is easy. why would jon want to work hard for the same income/pay as someone doing far less?? the answer is he doesnt. therefore no one has a drive to work hard because there is no better result or reward for hard work. if all citizens of this socialist society are faced with thes same question.. judging on humanity.. how many do you think would have chose to flip hamburgers? how many would work hard for the same pay as a hamburger flipper?


Students in college do not work harder than, say, coal miners or janitors or factory workers. On the contrary, studying can be quite enjoyable. There is a sense of accomplishment in increasing your knowledge. So the argument has a false premise. Studying in college and med school is not harder than other jobs.

Also, the argument assumes a capitalist division of labor where expertise and decision-making authority are concentrated into the hands of a few, such as managers and high-end professionals like engineers, doctors, lawyers. But that division of labor assumes a class system. But a proper understanding of revolutionary socialism is that it aims to do away with the class system. This would require re-organizing jobs so that everyone has some skill and expertise and participates in the decision-making.

At present doctors, lawyers, etc. can command high salaries because there are relatively few people with the necessary training and credentials. But if there is a major democratization of knowledge and education, so as to create many more people with medical knowledge, then these people won't have the bargaining power to force the society to pay them much higher incomes.

So the secret of high salaries of high end professionals isn't that they "work hard" -- they don't have a harsher form of work than other workers. Rather, the secret is the relative scarcity of people with the necessary credentials and thus a high level of bargaining power.

[Aurora]

Jon lives in a capitalist society. He is of age and is forced to work to get an income. He looks at the newpapers and there isn't any jobs, he goes on the dole and starts drinking because he cant provide the basic things his kids want

[Ocean Seal]

Quite frankly, in a socialist society I don't imagine doing anything other than what I love: physics. However, in a capitalist society I have to fear joblessness, eviction and many other things related to a profession that doesn't pay that well (I still wish to become a physicist, but I understand how this would deter someone). So what is it that socialism does. It allows you to choose the profession that best suits you, the one where you will work the hardest and thus will benefit society most in. Additionally, COMMUNISM==> is when wealth is deemed irrelevant and and everyone earns equally.
What we are shooting for is the SOCIALIST revolution.
People earn according to how hard they work in socialism, this is as opposed to capitalism where an elite controls the majority of the wealth. Because quite frankly how can a person who earns $ 20,000,000 a year justify his wealth when the median income is around $26,000. That's saying that he works about 770 times harder. If the average person works 8 hours a day he'd have to work every hour of the day and accomplish 250 times as much within the same time. That seems rather impossible. :D

[Kayser_Soso]

Quite frankly, in a socialist society I don't imagine doing anything other than what I love: physics. However, in a capitalist society I have to fear joblessness, eviction and many other things related to a profession that doesn't pay that well (I still wish to become a physicist, but I understand how this would deter someone). So what is it that socialism does. It allows you to choose the profession that best suits you, the one where you will work the hardest and thus will benefit society most in. Additionally, COMMUNISM==> is when wealth is deemed irrelevant and and everyone earns equally.
What we are shooting for is the SOCIALIST revolution.
People earn according to how hard they work in socialism, this is as opposed to capitalism where an elite controls the majority of the wealth. Because quite frankly how can a person who earns $ 20,000,000 a year justify his wealth when the median income is around $26,000. That's saying that he works about 770 times harder. If the average person works 8 hours a day he'd have to work every hour of the day and accomplish 250 times as much within the same time. That seems rather impossible. :D

Worse still, under capitalism there are many cultural and humanities fields that go totally ignored because it's too hard to make ends meet on a teacher or professor's salary. As a result, the nation's culture dies and is replaced by global mass produced culture.

[Adi Shankara]

I think what is the most apparent thing here is that, under a capitalist economy, we already live in a place where wages remain stagnant for those who work harder than others; if that wasn't the case, then fast food employees would be making 30 dollars an hour, instead of being threatened for their job security because they are turning out 400 burgers instead of 800 a day at a constantly fixed wage, no matter how hard one tries.