True socialism would probably be sharing it with those who can't work hard, not shoveling it to those who refuse (which would be the current "owning" class).
Probably more like everyone who can would work 5 hrs a week for everyone's needs to be met then add a 6th hour for the factor of safety. Then there's plenty of people who would also work a bit extra because they find purpose in the cause, or community at the work place...
If someone doesn't "want" to work they probably need the time off anyways. But they're not getting any extra benefit for doing nothing like the wealthy are now
Ignoring that there's no one "true Socialism," it largely will depend on the stage in Socialism and Communism. Social safety nets are a necessity, but their extent is going to be determined on the level of productivity.
What happens to those who refuse to work then? Let them starve to death?
Furthermore, it's IMHO hard to draw a line between being 'unable' and 'unwilling' to work. Some people have more energy, a higher level of motivation or have developed better skills than others. It's an ethical question that can't be answered definitely, but I wouldn't necessarily say that it's a person's individual fault to be 'lazy'. It's rather the result of their genetics, socialization etc.
I'm with you, but it's very hard to find a consensus on what is work and what isn't. What if someone decides to be a musician who makes music that no one else wants to listen to? What if someone wants to build sand castles in Antarctica? What if someone wants to be a landlord or a CEO? If you asked landlords or CEOs in today's system, I'm pretty sure they'll see themselves as (hard) working people which probably many folks in this community would object.
I think in capitalism and socialism you have contributers and profiteers. IMHO, the difference isn't about people working for others or not, but the level of inequality.
PS: Don't get me wrong. I'm not arguing against socialism, but specifically against the point in the meme.
Socialism isn't about validating people's random desires as labor, but collectively running the economy to meet as many people's needs to the best ability possible. It's about moving beyond competition and profit into cooperation and fulfilling uses and needs. We would not support someone wanting to build sand castles in Antarctica unless we had hyperabundance and it didn't matter, or if there was legitimate scientific need. Same with landlords, whose economic basis is entirely usury and thus unproductive. Administration will be a necessity, so functions similar to CEOs will exist even in higher stages of Communism, but not just because people want to.
@ProvableGecko@rbn Some people have a really low energy level (which doctors often seem to dismiss as laziness, and are often unwilling to run even the most basic of tests), some are very depressed and can barely get out of bed, some are "night owls" in a world that wants to demand that productive people rise at the crack of dawn, and some for whatever reason are anti-social, often because of things that happened in their formative years (such as being bullied) that makes them simply want to avoid being around people they don't know.
Consider a condition like prosopagnosia - a person may have it for years and never realize that other people have much better memories for faces than they do because it never dawns on them that they may have it, IF they have ever even heard of it. But bosses and others notice it, and think they are just being disrespectful or snobbish when they can't remember the face of their boss or coworkers that they just met ten minutes ago. And heaven help them if they are in a service job that requires remembering customer faces!
And if they are a crime victim, the police may think they are lying when they can't remember or describe the face of the person who committed a crime, so they won't help them. So they tend to be victimized and to lose jobs quickly and the people around them think they are lazy or just slacking off, or "trying to get fired." After a few months or years of that, a person may become unemployable; they never seem to be able to hold a job and no one seems to like them. All they really need is a job where they only interact with a handful of people (and maybe those people might need to accommodating for the first few days or weeks) but in our society people don't usually get to just pick their first jobs, and in fact many entry level jobs involve interacting with a lot of people. AND they still have to have been properly diagnosed, which rarely happens (I'll bet most people have never heard of prosopagnosia before!).
In my opinion, those who don't want to work should still be given the Basic needs to live, as in food and housing, as a human right. But I was specifically talking about the ruling class that makes insane profits off other peoples' labor.
those who don't want to work should still be given the Basic needs to live
I 100% agree. But that then also involves redistribution of wealth from working to non-working people. From my moral PoV, it's a much better form of wealth transfer than in capitalism, but the claim in the original post was that it doesn't happen at all in socialism. And in least in the vision of socialism that I have in mind with universal income etc. that's not correct.
The meme is more tha a short refutation for the old capitalist slogan aiming at dividing the working class than precise political program. It's also a thought shortcut for an very old discussion about this. Effect was usually, as in socialist Poland, policy of full employment including disabled people according to their abilities. Even people just outright refusing to work, despite being officially labeled "social parasites" and sometimes harrassed by militia, weren't cut off from welfare programs.
Coincidentally, that already happens under Capitalism.
Rather, this is about to capacity to do work and the willingness thereof. One shoulsd ideally be granted the opportunities and time to find work that they are able to balance both capability and attention towards.
Someone's got to do it and everyone is able to handle a job of their preference.
Socialism is Love
Wouldn't that apply to both systems somehow? Just that in socialism you'd distribute it earlier and more equally.
True socialism would probably be sharing it with those who can't work hard, not shoveling it to those who refuse (which would be the current "owning" class).
Probably more like everyone who can would work 5 hrs a week for everyone's needs to be met then add a 6th hour for the factor of safety. Then there's plenty of people who would also work a bit extra because they find purpose in the cause, or community at the work place...
If someone doesn't "want" to work they probably need the time off anyways. But they're not getting any extra benefit for doing nothing like the wealthy are now
Ignoring that there's no one "true Socialism," it largely will depend on the stage in Socialism and Communism. Social safety nets are a necessity, but their extent is going to be determined on the level of productivity.
What happens to those who refuse to work then? Let them starve to death?
Furthermore, it's IMHO hard to draw a line between being 'unable' and 'unwilling' to work. Some people have more energy, a higher level of motivation or have developed better skills than others. It's an ethical question that can't be answered definitely, but I wouldn't necessarily say that it's a person's individual fault to be 'lazy'. It's rather the result of their genetics, socialization etc.
Why would you refuse to work? Surely there's something everybody likes to do. Just do that and that's your contribution.
Anyway even if we did let the people who refused to work starve to death it wouldn't be that much different than our current predicament.
I'm with you, but it's very hard to find a consensus on what is work and what isn't. What if someone decides to be a musician who makes music that no one else wants to listen to? What if someone wants to build sand castles in Antarctica? What if someone wants to be a landlord or a CEO? If you asked landlords or CEOs in today's system, I'm pretty sure they'll see themselves as (hard) working people which probably many folks in this community would object.
I think in capitalism and socialism you have contributers and profiteers. IMHO, the difference isn't about people working for others or not, but the level of inequality.
PS: Don't get me wrong. I'm not arguing against socialism, but specifically against the point in the meme.
Socialism isn't about validating people's random desires as labor, but collectively running the economy to meet as many people's needs to the best ability possible. It's about moving beyond competition and profit into cooperation and fulfilling uses and needs. We would not support someone wanting to build sand castles in Antarctica unless we had hyperabundance and it didn't matter, or if there was legitimate scientific need. Same with landlords, whose economic basis is entirely usury and thus unproductive. Administration will be a necessity, so functions similar to CEOs will exist even in higher stages of Communism, but not just because people want to.
@ProvableGecko @rbn Some people have a really low energy level (which doctors often seem to dismiss as laziness, and are often unwilling to run even the most basic of tests), some are very depressed and can barely get out of bed, some are "night owls" in a world that wants to demand that productive people rise at the crack of dawn, and some for whatever reason are anti-social, often because of things that happened in their formative years (such as being bullied) that makes them simply want to avoid being around people they don't know.
Consider a condition like prosopagnosia - a person may have it for years and never realize that other people have much better memories for faces than they do because it never dawns on them that they may have it, IF they have ever even heard of it. But bosses and others notice it, and think they are just being disrespectful or snobbish when they can't remember the face of their boss or coworkers that they just met ten minutes ago. And heaven help them if they are in a service job that requires remembering customer faces!
And if they are a crime victim, the police may think they are lying when they can't remember or describe the face of the person who committed a crime, so they won't help them. So they tend to be victimized and to lose jobs quickly and the people around them think they are lazy or just slacking off, or "trying to get fired." After a few months or years of that, a person may become unemployable; they never seem to be able to hold a job and no one seems to like them. All they really need is a job where they only interact with a handful of people (and maybe those people might need to accommodating for the first few days or weeks) but in our society people don't usually get to just pick their first jobs, and in fact many entry level jobs involve interacting with a lot of people. AND they still have to have been properly diagnosed, which rarely happens (I'll bet most people have never heard of prosopagnosia before!).
In my opinion, those who don't want to work should still be given the Basic needs to live, as in food and housing, as a human right. But I was specifically talking about the ruling class that makes insane profits off other peoples' labor.
People want to work.
Given a diseaseless society and unlimited job opportunities you will see everyone working.
I 100% agree. But that then also involves redistribution of wealth from working to non-working people. From my moral PoV, it's a much better form of wealth transfer than in capitalism, but the claim in the original post was that it doesn't happen at all in socialism. And in least in the vision of socialism that I have in mind with universal income etc. that's not correct.
The meme is more tha a short refutation for the old capitalist slogan aiming at dividing the working class than precise political program. It's also a thought shortcut for an very old discussion about this. Effect was usually, as in socialist Poland, policy of full employment including disabled people according to their abilities. Even people just outright refusing to work, despite being officially labeled "social parasites" and sometimes harrassed by militia, weren't cut off from welfare programs.
Coincidentally, that already happens under Capitalism.
Rather, this is about to capacity to do work and the willingness thereof. One shoulsd ideally be granted the opportunities and time to find work that they are able to balance both capability and attention towards.
Someone's got to do it and everyone is able to handle a job of their preference.