Socialism is not in human nature

[theisthanger556]

I know.

Everyone has heard the very old "socialism can not work because of human nature" argument.

However, this is a different one.

I do believe that socialism can work, and that human nature would NOT cause it's collapse.

However, I do also believe that hierarchy is in human nature. That it is necessary for humans to have someone to be ruled by, and someone to rule.

In my opinion, socialism's biggest problem is NOT that it can not work, but rather I find it's biggest problem to be the lack of hierarchy.

I believe in very strict hierarchy and authority, I believe that those who work hard, be it academically or not, rewarded well. Now obivously this isn't the case in modern society (especially in Africa and Asia), but ideally, hard work would be rewarded well. The idea that a doctor who performs brain surgeries would not be above someone who works in Walmart grosses me out.

It's not so much that it can not work, but rather that it is morally bankrupt to keep a doctor and a Walmart worker are both in the same position (be this position very wealthy or very poor).

 

[ttwtt78640]

You are looking at this socialist ideal incorrectly. There is no requirement that a McJob yield exactly the same benefits as a rocket surgeon to have socialism - only that both work for the state. In other words, socialism can still have income inequality but that inequality would be far less than that of a typical capitalist system. Obviously, you need some financial incentive (greater reward?) to get someone to work harder or at a higher skill level than another or they would likely all opt (apply?) for the easiest task possible and goof off as much as possible.

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

I know.

Everyone has heard the very old "socialism can not work because of human nature" argument.

However, this is a different one.

I do believe that socialism can work, and that human nature would NOT cause it's collapse.

However, I do also believe that hierarchy is in human nature. That it is necessary for humans to have someone to be ruled by, and someone to rule.

In my opinion, socialism's biggest problem is NOT that it can not work, but rather I find it's biggest problem to be the lack of hierarchy.

I believe in very strict hierarchy and authority, I believe that those who work hard, be it academically or not, rewarded well. Now obivously this isn't the case in modern society (especially in Africa and Asia), but ideally, hard work would be rewarded well. The idea that a doctor who performs brain surgeries would not be above someone who works in Walmart grosses me out.

It's not so much that it can not work, but rather that it is morally bankrupt to keep a doctor and a Walmart worker are both in the same position (be this position very wealthy or very poor).

I'm not a socialist. But I think socialism just means that the government controlled by workers owns the factory (means of production). It doesn't mean the workers can't organize themselves in a management hierarchy through elections.

Right now, all over the world what you see is mixed economies. Some things just work better when they're collectively owned because we all need those things. I gave the example of an airport. I would argue that we all need health care so we should own that collectively too.

I don't believe there is one economic system that works for every situation. The richer a country is the more socialist institutions it can afford. And as automation begins to sweap the world and jobs disappear more socialism will be needed. Capitalism as we know it doesn't have a future.

 

[Lursa]

Neither is monogamy. Doesnt mean that it's wrong or doesnt serve a purpose in a society, as a benefit for society.

 

[Visbek]

I know.

Everyone has heard the very old "socialism can not work because of human nature" argument.

However, this is a different one.

I do believe that socialism can work, and that human nature would NOT cause it's collapse.

However, I do also believe that hierarchy is in human nature. That it is necessary for humans to have someone to be ruled by, and someone to rule.

In my opinion, socialism's biggest problem is NOT that it can not work, but rather I find it's biggest problem to be the lack of hierarchy.

I believe in very strict hierarchy and authority, I believe that those who work hard, be it academically or not, rewarded well. Now obivously this isn't the case in modern society (especially in Africa and Asia), but ideally, hard work would be rewarded well. The idea that a doctor who performs brain surgeries would not be above someone who works in Walmart grosses me out.

It's not so much that it can not work, but rather that it is morally bankrupt to keep a doctor and a Walmart worker are both in the same position (be this position very wealthy or very poor).

Meh

When humans evolved on the savannah, they weren't thinking about macroeconomics, trade balances, or ownership of the means of production. They were small bands of humans that had to figure out how to distribute responsibilities, goods and services without access to understanding things like "the distribution of responsibilities, goods and services."

Anyway. "Socialism" covers far too many political and economic systems to be all that useful in this context. Are we talking about failed efforts, like the totalitarian command economies of the USSR and China? Are we talking about market economies with some socialized features to soften the blow, like Denmark? Are we talking about a system where the proletariat controls the means of production?

 

[theisthanger556]

I'm not a socialist. But I think socialism just means that the government controlled by workers owns the factory (means of production). It doesn't mean the workers can't organize themselves in a management hierarchy through elections.

Right now, all over the world what you see is mixed economies. Some things just work better when they're collectively owned because we all need those things. I gave the example of an airport. I would argue that we all need health care so we should own that collectively too.

I don't believe there is one economic system that works for every situation. The richer a country is the more socialist institutions it can afford. And as automation begins to sweap the world and jobs disappear more socialism will be needed. Capitalism as we know it doesn't have a future.

Socialism is based on the dictatorship of the proletariat, where the 99% oppress the 1% (instead of the opposite).

There is definetly division of labour under socialism, but hierarchies are attempted to be eliminated as much as possible, eventually leading to communism.

Also, socialism isn't, atleast ideally, about workers control of the govt who controls the MoP. It aims for a more direct solution, direct democracy is favoured by socialists.

I believe in natioalized or privatized health care, but not collectivist.