Does socialism encourage hard work?

[Emsworth]

In any case, the BS about unearned power flies out the window when nepotism and inheritance are brought into the discussion. As does the belief that capitalism breeds freedom. There are as many socialist democracies as there are capitalist democracies.

Freedom and democracy are not synonymous. It is certainly possible for a democratically elected government to tyrannize the people. There may be as many socialist democracies as there are capitalist democracies, but that says nothing whatsoever about individual freedom.

[Michael Z]

In theory, but you have to understand that humans are lazy and 95% are more than willing to cheat the system. They won't work hard unless absolutely forced to.

It depends. If someone is in a job they enjoy, and take pride in their work, then there's no reason why they shouldn't work hard. I love my job so, naturally, I try to make more of an effort.

[Earth]

The problem in this case, I think, is one of underlying assumptions; that capitalism somehow instills, or rewards "hard work" when it's not that simple. I don't believe this paradigm of hard work would be altered under a socialist system, however vague the system is we're talking about.

Each system, particularly if we're speaking about first world countries, would have incentives to motivate. I don't for the life of me see an American form of 'socialism' doing away with financial incentives, or different levels of luxurious living.

[Brandon H]

The problem in this case, I think, is one of underlying assumptions; that capitalism somehow instills, or rewards "hard work" when it's not that simple. I don't believe this paradigm of hard work would be altered under a socialist system, however vague the system is we're talking about.

Capitalism doesn't reward hard work. It rewards successful work. I define that as work that someone is willing to pay for. You can be the hardest worker in the world, but if no one is willing to pay for your product or service then you need to go work hard at something else. Like wise you can be the laziest person in the world but if people are willing to pay for your product or service than you will end up getting rich (think celebrities).

Do I think celebrities are worth the millions they get paid? No, but someone does since people go out and see their movies. Do I think some of the these corporate CEO's are worth the millions they get paid? No, but I'm not a shareholder who votes on their salaries and bonuses.

[Earth]

I agree; successful as opposed to difficult. I really save my ire for views that equate successful with "right", though.

but until you come to the conclusion that state control does not exist in a capitalism, we're at a moot point.

State control can and does exist in capitalism, I don't know why you consider them to antithetical. Capitalism can exist in a variety of forms; that is how it manages to undermine opposition, and continue.

[dead0man]

Fellows, 'Work hard or we'll kill you' is precisely what capitalism says to the working class.  If you do not toil assiduously for the Man, you are fired and starve.

No, you work just hard enough to not get fired and for most of those working, that isn't very hard work.

..and yes, I'm sure your experiences are different.

[JSojourner]

It depends on what the primary motivations of the people in question are.

If someone's primary motivation for working hard is to get wealthy, then no, these people will work less hard under socialism than under capitalism. If someone's primary motivation is to do good for his fellow man, he'll generally work harder under socialism, or at least equally hard. Most people are obviously a mix of these two and not one extreme or the other.

Looking at work from the standpoint of a cost-benefit analysis, the optimal amount of work to perform in exchange for wealth received is higher under capitalism, but the amount that would produce the greatest overall good for society as a whole is generally higher under socialism.

That's one of the reasons why the best overall balance between the two is a mixed economy.

Can't add a thing to this excellent synopsis.  (And people wonder why Nym was my write-in for Atlas president!)

[Marokai Backbeat]

It depends on what the primary motivations of the people in question are.

If someone's primary motivation for working hard is to get wealthy, then no, these people will work less hard under socialism than under capitalism. If someone's primary motivation is to do good for his fellow man, he'll generally work harder under socialism, or at least equally hard. Most people are obviously a mix of these two and not one extreme or the other.

Looking at work from the standpoint of a cost-benefit analysis, the optimal amount of work to perform in exchange for wealth received is higher under capitalism, but the amount that would produce the greatest overall good for society as a whole is generally higher under socialism.

That's one of the reasons why the best overall balance between the two is a mixed economy.

Can't add a thing to this excellent synopsis.  (And people wonder why Nym was my write-in for Atlas president!)

Indeed, quite well said.

As for my personal answer to the question, I don't think it really makes an impact either way. As someone said earlier in the thread, it depends on the exact system.

[phk]

No, govt handouts are inherently demotivationary and evil sometimes (like farm subsidies).

[Marokai Backbeat]

No, govt handouts are inherently demotivationary and evil sometimes (like farm subsidies).

You're more amusing sticking to your hack healthcare threads.

[War on Want]

That depends on two things:

1. What is meant by "Socialism".
2. What is meant by "Hard Work".

[justfollowingtheelections]

Socialdemocracy does not encourage hard work and that's a good thing because there's nothing good about a society where people work themselves to death.  Capitalism on the other hand being a corrupt and inhuman system supported by the selfish ruling class forces people to work so hard that they have no time to enjoy life.  The difference between a socialist and a capitalist is that a socialist wants everyone to have access to basic goods while a capitalist only cares for his/her standards of living and gives the community the middle finger.  I'm generalizing of course but that's the kind of response capitalists deserve

[Rob]

<--- is pleasantly reminded that MaC is gone for good

[minionofmidas]

Like nothing else.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Absolutely not.