Does socialism encourage hard work?

[MaC]

vote.

[David S]

Depends on the specific variety of socialism. Opebo style socialism such as exists in some countries today does not encourage hard work. Communist style socialism had a simple and effective means of encouraging hard work. "Work hard or we'll kill you."

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I think it depends on the exact system.

[opebo]

Obviously yes, as it provides higher rates of pay, better working conditions, and more benefits than capitalism.

[Nym90]

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.

[John Dibble]

Obviously yes, as it provides higher rates of pay, better working conditions, and more benefits than capitalism.

Your logic stinks. Even if it provides those things, how would it make you work harder if you have no incentive to do so? I mean, if you get those things regardless of whether you work harder or not, why would one work harder?

[Richard]

Obviously yes, as it provides higher rates of pay, better working conditions, and more benefits than capitalism.

You're certainly working hard.

[opebo]

Obviously yes, as it provides higher rates of pay, better working conditions, and more benefits than capitalism.

You're certainly working hard.

I'm idle under capitalism, Richious, so you can't criticize.

[Max]

"Work hard or we'll kill you."

That sentence came to my mind, too.

[nclib]

Yes, since unlike capitalism, it is easier to become well-off through hard work rather than by the luck of being born to a wealthy family.

[Tory]

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.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

That depends on two things:

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

[Hatman 🍁]

not really, but neither does true capitalism. Both systems will encourage a few to work hard, but neither would encourage people to work hard on a general basis.

[MaC]

to Nym: Are humans more likely personally motivated by profit or helping their fellow man?

to opebo: unless you have political pull with the state, what's to ensure more benefits, higher pay, and better working conditions?

to nclib: once one is 'well-off' do they still feel the same obligation to work hard?

[opebo]

"Work hard or we'll kill you."

That sentence came to my mind, too.

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.

to opebo: unless you have political pull with the state, what's to ensure more benefits, higher pay, and better working conditions?

Nothing, Milk, and that is precisely the point.  Economic well being comes from political power, which is why the owning class is well off - they have all the political power.

[MaC]

to opebo: unless you have political pull with the state, what's to ensure more benefits, higher pay, and better working conditions?

Nothing, Milk, and that is precisely the point.  Economic well being comes from political power, which is why the owning class is well off - they have all the political power.

Yes, but that's my point.  Socialism is state control over the economy.  Capitalism will allow people to accumlate wealth without state controls.  Now I would debate you on this, but until you come to the conclusion that state control does not exist in a capitalism, we're at a moot point.

[opebo]

to opebo: unless you have political pull with the state, what's to ensure more benefits, higher pay, and better working conditions?

Nothing, Milk, and that is precisely the point.  Economic well being comes from political power, which is why the owning class is well off - they have all the political power.

Yes, but that's my point.  Socialism is state control over the economy.  Capitalism will allow people to accumlate wealth without state controls.  Now I would debate you on this, but until you come to the conclusion that state control does not exist in a capitalism, we're at a moot point.

Yes, the erroneous aspect of your thinking is that you assume that State control of economic conditions on behalf of the owner is 'lack of control'.

[MaC]

but can you agree on the definition that socialism takes money from the masses (whether or not it's a good thing) to redistribute the money in terms of services and welfare.  And by definition capitalism is the direct control of money by the person who made it with little or no state intereference on collection of the money or what it is spend on?

I'm not asking you as a judgement call which is better, but I think we should at least somewhat agree to an unbiased definition for argumentive purposes.

[opebo]

but can you agree on the definition that socialism takes money from the masses (whether or not it's a good thing) to redistribute the money in terms of services and welfare.

No.  It should ideally take money from not the masses, but from the ruling class (the owners).  Of course calling this 'taking from' is a bit of a confusing way of putting it, since it was and is 'taken from' the masses previously.  So, redistribution is merely a reduction of a privilege originally granted by the State anyway.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No.  What do you mean ther person who 'made it'?  The owner acquires money only because the State gaurantees his 'property' through force, and by the same method forces the property-less to toil for him.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I honestly believe that your belief that capitalism is 'free' is erroneous.

[MaC]

    socialism-Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

capitalism-An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

definitions from dictionary.com.

I probably have a biased definition as stated, but I'd be hard pressed to find someone that disagrees with either of these definitions.

[adam]

If you take the generic case in which everyone makes the same, because being more wealthy than your local fiscal liberal somehow makes you a corrupt and evil individual...you'll find that socialism does in no way encourage hard work.

If there is no oppertunity to move up, than you have no incentive to do better work. In a nice rainbow fantasy world where no one has any self-intrest and we all care about our neighbors then yes, perhaps socialism could work. But in the real world, people care about themselves and when you tell them that their work amounts to nothing because they are garunteed everything and nothing more...then they aren't going to work hard for you.

[nclib]

to nclib: once one is 'well-off' do they still feel the same obligation to work hard?

In theory they should, but in our current economic system, it is much easier for one who is well-off to stay well-off than it is for one to become well-off. (i.e. one does not need to work as hard once they become well-off due to many loopholes)

[John Dibble]

to nclib: once one is 'well-off' do they still feel the same obligation to work hard?

In theory they should, but in our current economic system, it is much easier for one who is well-off to stay well-off than it is for one to become well-off. (i.e. one does not need to work as hard once they become well-off due to many loopholes)

Actually, isn't that true in pretty much any economic system other than the ones that seize all your assets and kill you for being an 'oppressor of the proletariate'? I don't see how European rich people have a harder time staying rich than American rich people.

[Defarge]

Socialism in its true form, no.  Socialism as in crazy fascist stalinism where you'll be shot or sent to a camp if you don't work? yes.

[A18]

Haha, how ridiculous. Of course, the United States was one of the most prosperous nations in the world long before the corporatism and (later) socialism of the 20th century took root, and it has only performed much worse since then (although still much better than your beloved Europe).

Indeed, almost everything government touches, it breaks. Look at the anti-trust laws, the Federal Reserve which even caused the Great Depression, the New Deal, the War on Poverty, and health care.

You can, of course, dismiss anyone's ideas as 'propaganda.' But I would say any ideology that manages to portray leaving everyone the hell alone as 'subjugation' comes pretty close to embracing that label itself.