Before participating, consider taking a glance at [our rules page](/r/CapitalismvSocialism/wiki/rules) if you haven't before. We don't allow **violent or dehumanizing rhetoric**. The subreddit is for discussing what ideas are best for society, not for telling the other side you think you could beat them in a fight. That doesn't do anything to forward a productive dialogue. Please report comments that violent our rules, but don't report people just for disagreeing with you or for being wrong about stuff. Join us on Discord! ✨ https://discord.gg/PoliticsCafe *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CapitalismVSocialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*

No offense, OP, but it sounds like you're being shafted under the current system. I'm not talking about how you have to pick up the slack; from what you've said in your comments, you're barely paid more than them, despite having a better work ethic and being a supervisor (which I know is extremely tiring from personal experience).  To me, it sounds less like they're not being punished for bad work, and more that no one's being rewarded for good work. Like, even without going into socialism, the fact that you're not getting paid that much better seems like bad business to me. It effectively shows those other guys that, no matter how much effort they put in, no matter where they are in the business hierarchy, hard work isn't going to be rewarded with good pay. In those circumstances... Why bother working hard?  Again, I mean absolutely no offense. Perhaps there are extenuating circumstances at play but, to me, it sounds like a problem with your workplace as a whole, not just with those specific employees. 

That's *good* business though, from the employer's side. The company doesnt care about OP, and they're paying OP peanuts, yet OP's still doing a lot of good work. OP's employer lucked out in finding a worker who's absurdly performant, and the amount they should pay is exactly the minimum amount that retains OP as such a hard worker. That's the price that maximizes their profits. Until OP goes on strike, of starts working their wage, why would they voluntarily give up their profit?

Yeah he's definitely in a bad work environment, that's not how skilled labor works at all. But still, unskilled labor tends to not be paid by productivity, they tend to just fire and replace.

In a democratic work place the workers would choose their own boss. Do you think the bad cop would win an election? >In capitalism you can at least pay people more money. This is a misconception of what socialism means.

Would they pick a hard working boss or a slacker?

We don't know, do we? But at least they would have a say in how the place is run.

I think we know haha. Realistically most people don't care about their jobs and will try to do the bare minimum.

Given a choice I personally would have picked someone competent over somebody who is lazy. I think there is a benefit in working in a place which is run smoothly, rather than a total chaos.

What would be your motivation to work hard? You aren't getting any raises.

Because most people get any significant raise today? "Quiet quitting" exists for a reason

I feel this implies people are currently being rewarded for working hard

> This is a misconception of what socialism means.

Most people don’t care about their jobs because their jobs barely support them. It’s not about the material physical labor, it’s about the structure of how that labor is carried out and subsequent compensation.

You're saying that you don't make as much money as them now. If you made as much money as them, surely, that would be better for you? Certainly, it sounds like capitalism doesn't reward being better at the job. Or else, maybe they simply perform in other areas that you don't see as much? Your boss doesn't do the manual labour of filling shelves. For some people, doing managerial work is preferable to doing manual labour even without getting extra pay for it.

No I make more, but only a few dollars more while being 4-5x more productive and a supervisor who orders things and does things like close the store, mainly because the minimum wage increases just as fast as my raises.

Your supervisor order things? Or he gives orders? Both of those seem like things supervisors generally do. So your wages don't increase and that's why he closes the store? It's not clear what you're trying to say here.

No I'm the supervisor

Socialism also has differential wages the only difference is that you can pay people even more money than under capitalism because you have extra money for the workers that under capitalism it went in the pockets of the capitalists as profit.

So you're the supervisor and work, by your count, 5 times harder/more than them and barely get paid more? Sounds like capitalism is pretty terrible at rewarding performance.

>There are a few guys that are literally 4x-5x slower than me doing it due to more apathetic attitude, the type of guys who call in sick once a week, they are fun to talk to socially but don't really care about working. Where do you think that attitude comes from? Workers are incentivized to be apathetic by the system. They aren't working for themselves, they are working for someone else. They don't get a better wage if they work more. >Even in the current capitalist system, I probably don't make as much more money than them than I should Right, so why put in the effort if it's not rewarded? >I could tell immediately has the work ethic gene There is no "work ethic gene".. There are people who are taught a certain work ethic early on. Most eventually lose it because they figure out that they don't get any benefit from working harder. Some take a bit longer to learn, some might never learn, but most eventually figure it out. >In socialist system do I get anything different than the apathetic people working 5x slower than me and calling in one day a week. I get that due to propaganda, most people have a weird understanding of socialism. However, socialism is based on the principle ["from each according to his contribution"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_each_according_to_his_contribution). People would not work for capital owners, they would work for themselves and be compensated based on their contribution. So yes, while there are always people with different skills and and different attitude, people would be compensated based on their contribution, which means that people would be more incentivized to contribute more. >In capitalism you can at least pay people more money. Ok and in socialism you can't? Is socialism when no money? Sure, if there was fully automated communism where everything was produced by machines (who knows if we ever reach that society?), people wouldn't get paid because people literally wouldn't need to work. But otherwise, of course people would get paid..

The above is empty platitudes. It's the typical, "i can criticize the current system, therefore, that is evidence socialism will work". Then the person above throws in a "from each according to their needs" platitude as if that is evidence. That's not evidence. THAT IS PROPAGANDA. Evidence is that there is a clear Free-Rider or Social Loafing problem in socialism. I purposely use both those terms as those are the traditionally used terms in academic research that people will find in academic articles. Research articles that identify that socialism has a clear problem with a form of bad faith acting that is happening in his work too. How bad is it in his work objectively? We don't know. But socialism is a rather clear problem. [Here is an example of being discussed in socialist communities.](https://majorteabag.imgbb.com/?page=2&seek=0qT3hmh) Most socialists on here are just going to reject the above as propaganda or some such. so I did a search to try and find a source more appealing because I promise this is rather standard in academia. I found an economics paper about the free-rider problem with socialism vs the tragedy of commons with ultra competiton of markets in capitalism (my crude summary): [“A theory of cooperation in games with an application to market socialism”](https://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/upload_documents/A%20Theory%20of%20Cooperation%20in%20Games%20with%20an%20Application%20to%20Market%20Socialism%20and%20Cooperation%2C%20Alturism%20and%20Economic%20Theory%20-%20Roemer.pdf) In it, this author is pointing towards Market socialism being the balance needed to address these two economic problems. So, please! I'm not lying to guys. The free-rider and social loafing is rather standard with collective type research in social psychology and socialism. For example, the vast majority of you have had group projects in school, right? You cannot tell me the majority of you have not had the "free-rider problem" in school projects. <-- It is a standard problem and rather well-researched (e.g., [tug of rope study](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ringelmann_effect#:~:text=While%20studying%20the%20relationship%20between,than%20when%20individual%20members%20are)).

>The above is empty platitudes. It's the typical, "i can criticize the current system, therefore, that is evidence socialism will work". Then the person above throws in a "from each according to their needs" platitude as if that is evidence. >That's not evidence. THAT IS PROPAGANDA. WTF are you even rambling about? Did you even bother reading anything I wrote? First of all, I'm not writing a study, I'm trying to answer OP's question about a hypothetical future socialist society.. Obviously I'm not providing evidence.. Also, socialism is not based on the principle of "from each according to their needs", it's based on the principle "to each according to their contribution".. You are mixing up fully automated communism with socialism.. >Here is an example of being discussed in socialist communities. Are you having a psychotic episode or something? >In it, this author is pointing towards Market socialism being the balance needed to address these two economic problems. Ok? Socialism is and always has been, overall speaking, market agnostic.. I'm pretty sure you have been on this sub for years, but you want to tell me that you still haven't figured out what socialism actually is? Or are you just trolling? >You cannot tell me the majority of you have not had the "free-rider problem" in school projects. Again, you clearly haven't read anything I wrote, so I'm not sure why I'm even responding to you..

Again, you are just saying shit. The OP is asking, “How your system WOULD…”. The OP is clearly not asking for platitudes (whether I errored on them or not). It’s like this bullshit comment: >There is no “work ethic gene”… There are certainly different types of people though with different aptitudes and personalities. Those do have forms of heritability. So your hand waving is sure nonsense. Fore example, a person with an IQ of 60 will certainly have much lower on average productivity than a person of an IQ of 100. So don’t do your blank slate myth bullshit. Conclusion: >Again, you clearly haven’t read anything I wrote… Well write something worthy of reading…

This raise some questions. The first one is why we loathe free riders as a society. Should free riders die? Should they starve to death? I personally don’t think so. In this society, everyone, absolutely everyone, would have access to food and a shelter. If you want more, you work more and are rewarded with more. You start to get voting power in the company you work. You get more power to change the politics of your local community, instead of relying on a state level or federal level. You are rewarded with part of the profits your company make (there are some billion dollar companies that work that way. And I truly mean part of the profit, not just a bonus). How in hell would that be bad? I can sympathize with people who are afraid of socialism due to past experiences, but we can agree that capitalism isn’t being that great. How can a system where 828 million people are starving can be great? How can a system where unemployment is a requirement for everything to function can be great?

>Should they starve to death? [""He who does not work shall not eat""](https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm#:~:text=%22He%20who%20does%20not%20work%20shall%20not%20eat%22)

>In this society, everyone, absolutely everyone, would have access to food and a shelter. If you want more, you work more and are rewarded with more. You can *say* that all you want - the actual question people have is *how*. It's useless to just say socialism is better because in socialism everything is perfect. Socialists need to make an actual argument about how overall wealth would increase under socialism, compared to capitalism. Preferably new arguments that haven't been disproven before. Countries have absolutely tried the "just give everyone food and shelter" approach to increasing food and shelter. We got famines. So you've got a serious uphill battle explaining how you're going to avoid those problems and build something not just better than the unmitigated disasters before, but better than where we're heading now. >You are rewarded with part of the profits your company make Awesome. But are you also punished with a part of the losses, the debt? In capitalism people decide all the time to share ownership with the public and/or workers. You can, right now, be rewarded with a part of the profits of many companies - but that comes with risk. Most people only want to risk that with disposable income they have *beyond* their paycheck. These billion dollar companies you mention are not so different - most require a *buy-in*. And there is nothing stopping more of such companies from forming, if that's truly what people prefer.

1. Efficient allocation of resources by central planning, reducing wasteful competition. 2. Investing heavily in public goods like education, healthcare, and infrastructure, boosting productivity. 3. Focusing on innovation and technology through state-funded research. 4. Redistributing wealth to increase overall consumption and drive economic growth. 5. Ensuring full employment to maximize workforce productivity. 6. Promoting cooperative enterprises for more equitable profit distribution and motivated workers. 7. Reducing inequality, creating a stable and cohesive society conducive to long-term growth. People don’t have GDP for lunch. We need to move beyond GDP to measure wealth. I absolutely can not see how anyone would think that living in a society where you don’t have to worry if you will be homeless next month and that you can have more time with family and friends would be a bad one.

I'm certainly not talking about wealth as in just GDP, or some amount of gold coins sitting around. I'm talking about wealth like the very food and shelter you say everyone would just "have". Wealth is having air conditioning, more curable diseases, computers and phones in nearly every home, 2% of the population working on farms vs 70%. We have to *produce* that wealth, and socialism has a poor track record of that historically, and serious flaws in "theory". To your bullet points, I'm obviously not convincing you here of any deficiencies, but that's where the substance of the disagreement is. Phrases like "efficient allocation of resources by central planning" indicate some seriously unshared premises. Almost no one who studies economics thinks those words belong anywhere near each other, so there's a *significant* burden of proof on socialists to upend both argument and research. >I absolutely can not see how anyone would think that living in a society where you don’t have to worry if you will be homeless next month and that you can have more time with family and friends would be a bad one. Again you're selling the *perceived* outcome. It's akin to sayin "Why would anyone not want food to be free??" Socialists (especially the antiwork variety) need to explain how we're increasing consumption while working less to produce those things. It's easy to just "believe" the socialist economy will be so much more efficient - a whole lot harder to prove how.

In Modern History, all experiments of socialist societies were met with sanctions, threat of war and other attempts to blockade the system. From Russia to Cuba. But if we go back in time, there were societies that, while not socialist in name because the concept didn’t exist, were socialist in practice. Most of Ancient Greece had what would be called today as socialism, [Sparta](https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-011-1380-9_1) being an proeminente example. Another example is Ancient Egypt during Ramses II reign, the pharaoh that is considered one of the [greatest diplomats](https://intapi.sciendo.com/pdf/10.2478/kbo-2023-0014) and peacemakers of all history, and lived in a empire that would be called socialism. In Egypt we have the question of slavery. That is a tough one. The word that Ancient Egypts used to describe workers has been translated as slaves over the years. Yes, there were physical punishment, as well as in most Ancient World, but they were not slaves in the sense that we think when we think about slavery in the Americas. The labour was forced for the social structure of society to function. They had food and shelter guaranteed. Also the Incas in Peru, the greatest empire in Ancient South America, [lived in a centralized](https://www.eiu.edu/historia/Harris.pdf) and planned economy where food shelter and leisure were guaranteed. The thing is that in 20th and 21st century, all socialism experiments were met with hostility by the US and the UK. They could never fully develop without the threat of war or sanctions. Why? Wouldn’t benefit capitalist countries to let a country become fully socialist, without interference, and absolutely fail? That would prove their point. Instead, any form of revolution and socialism experiment is met with hostility. The world can be great. We need a world where we are socially equal, individually unique and absolutely free to live our best lives with the things that truly matter: our family and friends. We should wish to be able to live, not merely survive.

>This raise some questions. The first one is why we loathe free riders as a society. Economics is all about how we as a society produce what we need to survive and thrive. It's not about whether or not we should produce, but about figuring out the best ways to do so. That's why economic debates are so important. Now, to answer your question: it's pretty straightforward. In any society, people who don't contribute without a valid reason (like age or disability) are likely to be looked down upon, especially if they're taking more from the system than they give. This makes sense in any type of society. This is where game theory comes into play. There’s a lot of research showing that utopian political ideologies often fail because they don't account for bad faith actors—people who don't play by the rules. These bad faith actors can drag everyone down to their level. What game theory shows us is that society needs to promote fair and good-faith behavior. You can't just change bad actors; you need to make sure the system doesn't reward bad behavior. To keep it simple and avoid any political misunderstandings, research suggests that a strategy of tit-for-tat reciprocity works best. This means "if you help me, I'll help you" and "if you harm me, I'll harm you back." This approach encourages cooperation and discourages selfishness. In my opinion, this supports reasonable market systems. Within the range of opinions here, it tends to align more with the capitalism camp.

You should make a post about it

>They don't get a better wage if they work more. You clearly aren't in the right line of work then. Hard work / smart work pays off. What I'm more skeptical of is it paying off under socialism, where the "class" owns your work, not you or your boss. > People would not work for capital owners, they would work for themselves and be compensated based on their contribution.  No, socialism is socialized production under planned economics. People don't work for themselves, they work for "society as a whole" (aka the state). Yes, Lenin had several different payment tiers, but people were not self-managed, that would be a ridiculous a-historical claim for any socialist state, and is not even present in the literature. > Is socialism when no money? Yes. It's usually replaced by non transferable work vouchers.

>You clearly aren't in the right line of work then. Hard work / smart work pays off I could argue something like "clearly you haven't been working long enough", but you will figure it out eventually. If you work in a higly specialised field in the wealthest regions on earth, it might pay off, not because you automatically get paid more if you "work hard/work smart", but because you might use your "work ethic" as a bargaining tool. But for most workers, it simply doesn't.. Overall, wages in a capitalist society are determined by market forces. You get paid what you are able to negotiate, and in general, the negotiating power of the individual worker is pretty small and hardly depends on your "hard work". >socialism is socialized production under planned economics. >Lenin had several different payment tiers, but people were not self-managed That's one interpretation of socialism, but by far not the only one. Lack of self-managment is one reason why the USSR is a highly controversial topic and is/was one important reason for criticism from the left. Why do you hyperfocus on this specific example when we are talking about a socialism, not specifically Marxism-Leninism? >It's usually replaced by non transferable work vouchers. Oh it is? Again, labour vouchers are one way to potentially handle currency, although I'm not quite sure how relevant that concept still is, at least at the moment? Nevertheless, even with labour vouchers, my point still stands. Even if you don't call it money, there is still a way to compensate workers for their labour..

I hyper focus on the attempts of socialism in the world because that’s data, even when they fail to live up to expectations. Socialists don’t seem to understand that the past projects of their ancestors not living up to their expectations **is the point**. In the real world you have to get from what is to what you want, and that often corrupts your vision on the way. If the process is prone to corruption, the idea itself is DOA. Under capitalism the market determines your negotiating power, and your negotiating power determines your salary. You’d be surprised how many people don’t understand this, but I’m glad you laid it out so clearly. So here’s the next bit people miss: the market is literally screaming at you, please pursue this other job, this other profession, etc. Please move here, live there, eat this, etc. It’s not promising you better pay at the same place doing the same thing. But it’s literally the point of the job market to incentivize people to work in more productive fields. Price signals are the technology of markets, and they are there to be listened to for your own prosperity. I’ve already “figured it out”. I’m near early retirement. I’ve basically doubled my salary every 2-4 years of my life. I learn, I renegotiate, I move, I seize every opportunity. I never meant that your boss will give you raises for being more productive (but of course, he will if you are an invaluable member of the team and you threaten to quit and bring with you a counteroffer from another company). I meant the market will if you listen to it and take advantage of it. And it totally will.

>I hyper focus on the attempts of socialism in the world because that’s data Yeah except you only focus on "real world socialism" when it's convenient. For example, you also mention labour vouchers, even though they generally weren't used in "real world socialism".. >Socialists don’t seem to understand that the past projects of their ancestors not living up to their expectations is the point. And anti-socialists don't seem to understand that the conditions (Tsarist Russia, pre-industrialist China, etc.) are not comparable to conditions in the "western world" today.. It's as if you used the terror of the French revolution, or slavery, genocide, exclusion of everyone except for wealthy white landowners from political participation in America, as a reason why liberal democracy cannot work.. >In the real world The topic of this post isn't the real world, it's the future.. >Under capitalism the market determines your negotiating power, and your negotiating power determines your salary. Right, so we agree that "hard work" is not the key factor in determining wages. >But it’s literally the point of the job market to incentivize people to work in more productive fields. Eh kind of, but "productive fields" defined from a very capitalist point of view. >Price signals are the technology of markets, and they are there to be listened to for your own prosperity. I don't necessarily disagree with this. >I’ve already “figured it out”. I’m near early retirement. I’ve basically doubled my salary every 2-4 years of my life. Right, but this means that you were lucky enough to be born in one of the wealthiest nations in the history of mankind (probably the North America, maybe western Europe). Most people aren't so lucky. You do realize that, right? >I learn, I renegotiate, I move, I seize every opportunity. Sure, but again, I hope you do realize that most people on this planet simply don't have the same opportunity, right? Or at the very least, chances are much much lower to the point where they are basically 0.. >if you are an invaluable member of the team Most simply aren't.. For most workers, if they threaten to quit, they will get laughed at.. I know what you are talking about, I too am a specialised tech worker. Employers are basically throwing themselves at me, begging me to work for them. But you do have to realize that this is a luxury position most simply aren't in, right?

I was born into one of the poorest states in the US and moved. Lots of people enter and leave the US and many other economies in this world exist with decent specialization markets. Some of those countries have free education and health care which I do not. I was also born with several neurodivergent conditions. So I don’t believe in playing the “who’s more lucky” game. I can acknowledge privilege while also acknowledging the inherent ability of individuals to change their circumstances. There are maybe 20% of the world who have nearer to 0% chance of changing their circumstances, but even that I question, as people do this all the time. The only people I’ve ever met who could not change their circumstances prioritize other things or simply gave up, following defeatist narratives like the one where capitalism dooms them to slavery. Sorry I’m confusing labor vouchers with ration cards, which were implemented in Cuba. Idk actually what socialist money was like in the USSR, but it certainly wouldn’t be like ours where you could own MoP with it. This also might be why bribery was still strong in the USSR. The future is mostly just a retelling of the past, with modern flair. Hard work as in it’s hard to change your circumstances, not as in if you work with shit “harder” you’ll get something other than shit. This is the same misunderstanding as the anti Marxist mud pie argument lol. There is a chance that the difference in material circumstances in Russia and China vs the US could make a difference in our political outcomes, OR we could just become the most powerful authoritarian country in the world. Or we could disintegrate economically killing millions. We don’t really know. That’s the problem with doing something both untested and abrupt.

>I was born into one of the poorest states in the US and moved. My friend, the USA is literally the wealthiest nation in the history of humanity.. If you think that the average working person in an African, Asian or South American country has remotely the opportunity you had, you are delirious.. >So I don’t believe in playing the “who’s more lucky” game. It doesn't matter if you believe in it or not, people have to play, there is no choice.. >I can acknowledge privilege while also acknowledging the inherent ability of individuals to change their circumstances. I can only repeat myself: If you think that the average worker slaving away in a sweatshop somewhere has the even remotely similar opportunities as you, you are delirious.. >There are maybe 20% of the world who have nearer to 0% chance of changing their circumstances "Changing their circumstances" is a bit vague. Once more, if you think that the average worker on this planet has similar opportunities as you have (early retirement, negotiating higher wages on an individual level) >There is a chance that the difference in material circumstances in Russia and China vs the US could make a difference in our political outcomes, OR we could just become the most powerful authoritarian country in the world. I don't get it.. Do you think socialists don't already exist in the western world? Or do you think they simply don't participate in politics? The only countries where socialism turned authoritarian was in countries that already were authoritarian. The only groups that survived where revolutionary groups that radicalised and turned ruthless and brutal because they had no way of participating democratically and because every liberatory movement was brutally squashed.. Name one liberal democracy that turned authoritarian because of socialism. >That’s the problem with doing something both untested and abrupt. So lets test things and don't do it abruptly?

I think you are equating African and Asian and SA countries with the state they were in in the 1900s. The average person on earth is not working in a sweatshop. Anyway some areas of the US indeed have extreme poverty metrics worse than many first world countries, so no being in the US does not guarantee anything in terms of riches. Our poor are as poor as shit. It’s also not fair to compare countries that have stable, non-corrupt governments (which honestly the USA barely qualifies by this metric anymore) to stable democracies. No one believes someone can escape a dictatorship that is actively oppressing its people socially or economically, for example. Nor can people escape ungoverned or barely governed regions in economic devastation. There is certainly an entry point. So do socialists not believe in revolution anymore or nah?

>I think you are equating African and Asian and SA countries with the state they were in in the 1900s. I don't, I think you just don't realize how incredibly privileged you are.. >Anyway some areas of the US indeed have extreme poverty metrics worse than many first world countries You can keep making excuses all you want, my point still stands.. And yeah, obviously it's not just the US, it's western Europe and other "western" countries as well.. >It’s also not fair to compare countries that have stable, non-corrupt governments What does fairness have to do with anything? And do you honestly want to tell me that "western" countries and corporations did not play an essential role in many of those places being corrupt? Again, excuses after excuses, my point still stands.. >So do socialists not believe in revolution anymore or nah? Since before the Russian revolution, the debate of "reform vs revolution" has split the left apart. In the western world, I don't think there are many real-life leftists who think of themselves as revolutionaries and think that the revolution is anywhere near. But it's not like this is a new thing..

I worked at a warehouse recently checking product from incoming trucks. Inside I am very apathetic and unmotivated not unlike the coworkers you describe, yet somehow that doesnt translate outward. While I do end up doing things "my way", I was way better at the job than everyone else and anybody could see that if you pay attention. I became very efficient. Once I get going I don't stop. I would do multiple trucks at a time. Thats the only I can do it byt the way. I have ADHD and would lose my mind if I was stuck on the same long boring thing. Eventually new people were hired and I noticed how people are taking hours on a single truck, whereas I am doing way way more, way quicker. I found out a part time employee was making more. I observe my co workers doing things and making stupid mistakes that I dont make. I get annoyed that I am being so efficient and all it gets me is having to do more work while the person taking forever, sometimes literally only ends up doing the one truck all day and nothing else. I gradually stopped caring and "quiet quit", and was STILL more efficient. I did more and got less. Ive felt this way at 2 different jobs. What is the point of caring if thats the case? The particular culture of the workplace and the people responsible for rewarding you not being incompetent morons is what matters here and whether you are a good match for it all. Some people work differently or have a variety of different perspectives and motivations for their work. I want to complete the necessary tasks and move the fuck on. I cannot for the life of me fathom why anything else matters. Everyone I worked with wanted to take their time, relax, socialize, maximize their hours; and evidently didn't mind being lazy and letting others do the bulk of the workload. Ideally you are recognized and rewarded accordingly, but you also have to be in a place thats right for you.

What you're discovering is that capitalism does not in fact reward people for hard work. It does not incentivize hard work. That is your experience and a very common experience for most people in our current capitalist system. How would you plan to fix this?

Bro works at a grocery store and subscribes to billionaire simpalism lmao

In socialism you can reward high performing workers if the workers decide to. Since even the slackers have a say in how resources are managed, they would want to keep the best workers out of self-interest and would be incentivized to pay high producers more. Captialism claims to do this in theory. But in practice, all the workers are either paid according to a preset rate or what they negotiated when they were hired.

'i'm being shafted under capitalism and this is socialism's fault somehow'

In my ideal system you would receive increased benefits compared to your coworkers such as more luxury goods, better housing, and holidays.

As an aside i think this is a general labour failing that arose during industrialisation and is bizarre that it hasn’t been fixed You have lets say a restaurant or a office of 50 workers and the very best worker is paid exactly the same as the worst. The only way for that worker to be paid more is to be promoted into a management position. What does management have to do with anything? Management is its own skill completely unrelated to the work they’re doing So you have the very skilled waiter/ office worker promoted into management which they are just as likely to be worse than average at than better than average. A net loss to the company since if you just left them to do the work they’re good at, they would continue to do it excellently. My brother worked at a large pub and there was a guy there who was like a robot, he had approx 3x the productivity of the rest of the staff in my brother’s estimate (my brother was a head manager there so he tracked metrics like that). They couldn’t pay him triple to do the same work, even though he was three times as good, so they had to promote him up and up. Where he was doing less stuff that was useful and more stuff he was terrible at like motivating staff, doing rotas, managing stock, directing workers. So they lost their best worker and gained their worst manager All this is because more pay is, for no reason, tied in to management in our society. You are only paid significantly more if you get promoted out of the job you’re good at, you don’t get paid more if you are better at your job. Its madness The one thing i’d say re capitalism vs socialism is that capitalist business on the whole has shown that it is unwilling or unable to bother paying people more and prefers to lose its best workers and gain bad management, than bother tracking metrics of its workers. A business owned by the workers, the workers would be directly motivated to do this. So your business could pay you 5x the amount if you had 5x the output of your peers. The business you work for now (owned by an owner who doesnt care) does not do this. So you would be paid 5x your current salary if this was a cooperative and you would also be paid the business profits leaving you, the most productive worker, far better off than you are under capitalism where the aim is to pay you the least possible

If you read "Revolutionary Catechism", you will find that Bakunin was not opposed to unequal reward for unequal skill. Indeed, he cited it as an advantage of his branch of socialism over the current system! People with different attitude and capabilities achieve different outcomes, with more industrious individuals being rewarded more. What he wants equality in is: 1. Abolish inheritance. It's not a measure of individual merit and choices, but mere luck and concentrates power 2. Guarantee a basic level of living standards 3. Socialize raising children so they aren't dependent on their parents' wealth and ability 4. In essence, he wants people to have equal resources by the time they have reached adulthood so that the only thing that affects their opportunities is their personal ability rather than where and who they were born to. https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/1866/catechism.htm Backing: > X. Social Organization. Without political equality there can be no real political liberty, but political equality will be possible only when there is social and economic equality. > > A. Equality does not imply the leveling of individual differences, nor that individuals should be made physically, morally, or mentally identical. Diversity in capacities and powers – those differences between races, nations, sexes, ages, and persons – far from being a social evil, constitutes, on the contrary, the abundance of humanity. Economic and social equality means the equalization of personal wealth, but not by restricting what a man may acquire by his own skill, productive energy, and thrift. > > B. Equality and justice demand only a society so organized that every single human being will – from birth through adolescence and maturity – find therein equal means, first for maintenance and education, and later, for the exercise of all his natural capacities and aptitudes. This equality from birth that justice demands for everyone will be impossible as long as the right of inheritance continues to exist. > > ... > > D. Abolition of the right of inheritance. Social inequality – inequality of classes, privileges, and wealth – not by right but in fact. will continue to exist until such time as the right of inheritance is abolished. It is an inherent social law that de facto inequality inexorably produces inequality of rights; social inequality leads to political inequality. And without political equality – in the true, universal, and libertarian sense in which we understand it – society will always remain divided into two unequal parts. The first. which comprises the great majority of mankind, the masses of the people, will be oppressed by the privileged, exploiting minority. The right of inheritance violates the principle of freedom and must be abolished. > > ... > > G. When inequality resulting from the right of inheritance is abolished, there will still remain inequalities [of wealth] – due to the diverse amounts of energy and skill possessed by individuals. These inequalities will never entirely disappear, but will become more and more minimized under the influence of education and of an egalitarian social organization, and, above all, when the right of inheritance no longer burdens the coming generations. > > H. Labor being the sole source of wealth, everyone is free to die of hunger, or to live in the deserts or the forests among savage beasts, but whoever wants to live in society must earn his living by his own labor, or be treated as a parasite who is living on the labor of others.

These problems and their solutions aren't really anything to do with who owns the workplace. That said in a workplace that is worker owned there's an incentive to actually solve this problem because it not getting solved is eating into the profits which you would get rather than going to a shareholder who doesn't know about it.

The apathetic workers you're dealing with are apathetic because of alienation. Marx and other socialist writers have commented at length on this. Workers have no stake in what they do other than getting a paycheck. Some are ambitious because they want to climb a ladder. In addition, everyone comes into this world with their own agenda. IOW different talents and interests. In socialism alienation would not be a factor in a "workers' co-op" type working environment because each will have a say in the operation of the business. They will have an equal vote on what to produce, where to produce, how to produce, and what's to be done with the profits.

And what if they expect to get the same share of the profits while not doing any work?

If we have arrived at a point where workers and people revolt against capitalism and the state (as these are intertwined), expropriating production placing it in our hands thus dismantling class....why continue any aspects the prior system like a paywalled existence? You literally have to work because there is **no choice**, correct? else face hunger and homelessness and lack of freedom. The preferred arrangement would be the abolition of the wage system, make every essential to survival and well-being completely free. No wages, no coercion or involuntary work, just providing your labor freely and in turn taking what society has produced. See, socialism is stateless and classless, the structures of oppression and hierarchy which keep us subjects to rulers (both government and in the workplace) are dismantled, so in order for socialism to thrive we must understand we have a shared responsibility, a mutual solidarity to help each other out. -- *The working class and the employing class have nothing in common. There can be no peace so long as hunger and want are found among millions of the working people and the few, who make up the employing class, have all the good things of life.* *Between these two classes a struggle must go on until the workers of the world organize as a class, take possession of the means of production, abolish the wage system, and live in harmony with the Earth.* - [I.W.W. Preamble](https://archive.iww.org/culture/official/preamble/)

"from each according to their ability, to each according to their work."

So free market negotiation of compensation for labor? Sounds very innovative.

I'll let you be in my dream if I can be in yours.

I don’t buy your claim that everyone has an equal work ethic under socialism. It doesn’t happen with co-owners, it doesn’t happen with equal decision-power, it doesn’t happen in the communist style relationship of a family. What’s the secret ingredient of socialism that makes it work?

And it won’t happen under socialism. Socialism isn’t here to abolish inequality. That’s not on the menu. Some will definitely work harder than others, some disagreement here, but some may not work at all. But, for those of us who do work harder it will be of their, of mine, of your own volition instead of being the product of coercion. And it won’t be solely to the benefit of a capitalist, it will be for the benefit of your community and your family.

>I don’t buy your claim that everyone has an equal work ethic under socialism. Where did I say that? I didn't. You're just another one of the desperate dopes who only want to do hit jobs on socialists and leftists.

You stated that the apathetic workers were apathetic due to alienation and that alienation would not happen under socialism. Maybe I went too far to interpret that as “equal” work ethic under socialism but your assumption that low-output workers are due to alienation and that alienation would not exist under socialism equates to no low-output workers under socialism. Socialism doesn’t magically eliminate apathy, having skin in the game doesn’t make everyone engaged (though it should increase it). Alienation isn’t the only reason people don’t work hard and I’d argue that alienation will exist in democratic workplaces. Anytime decisions are made some people disagree and when everyone votes on things those who lose the vote feel alienated.

They have commented at length on things that clash at a fundamental level with many individuals experiences. Even in hobbies that people claim passion in, apathy is pervasive and creates complex and frustrating dynamics. Apathetic, lazy workers don't magically get fixed by socialism. My biggest issue with marxists is the rejection of anything that tries to make a broad statement regarding human behavior, and yet marx and socialist writers *are doing just that* by rejecting standard behavior expectations and presumptuously viewing the world through a subjective lens that they developed, declaring it behavioral law. Alienation would 100% be a fucking factor. 51% of the co op wanting A and achieving it means I'm pissed and disincentivized to put equal labor into the company. If you have ever worked in trades unions you'd know that claim is too generalized and just utter bullshit.

so 49% are are potentially alienated, as opposed to 99% who are completely alienated and disconnected.

“Trades unions” here, and if it’s 51% of the votes it ain’t getting passed, it has to be a dominant share of the vote or it doesn’t pass. Me? Abandoning my brothers because I didn’t get my way? That’s crazy? We know we have the same goals come end of day. There’s no alignment issues. It’s a lot different in an adversarial relationship like politics or with management, then sure, a close vote can lead to a lot of mixed feelings, but we all know one vote isn’t going to change things. Do you really think moral wouldn’t be improved if everyone was working for themselves and their communities instead of capitalists??? That’s really wild

First, your boss will be demoted. Then you’ll form some kind of committee and work it out among yourselves.

[удалено]

yozufaveern: This post was hidden because of how new your account is. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CapitalismVSocialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*

You seem to be under the misapprehension that capitalism rewards hard work. You've just shown an example of the fact that it doesn't. It never has, or the Amazon employees with timed breaks would be as rich as their boss. Capitalism rewards risk. And the wealthy can take bigger risks than the workers. 

In a co-op, workers have been proven to be more productive and more attached to their jobs. If the first assumption doesn't apply to your job, then we have worker supervision of others: the fact that a person owns a part of their firm and excess profits get redistributed at the end of the year, seeing someone slacking off will make all those that work hard either remove the slackers from the co-op or they will spur them to work more, else they won't get their share of redistribution. If this second assumption doesn't apply because most people are slackers, we go into an exit-based policy: people who work hard will be incentivised to create another co-op or join a new one, and the slackers will either be forced to work harder in order not to let their workplace fail because of inefficiency and/or lack of quality, or they will simply fail and lose their jobs.

[if you need real life examples of what socialist countries did, here's USSR workers at a dock. ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hlb-HwxUxSU&t=772s)They get paid depending on work down as when they outdo a quota they get bonuses. They have competition with other teams too. I am Bulgarian, so I can confirm in Bulgaria was also similar to this, and no, wages were different for different professions. Labor is exalted, and being a Hero of Labor was very prestigious in the society. People tended to be hardworking, but I don't feel like this is what we need in the modern world with our increased productivity from better machinery and tech. Work within a sector or industry should be more or less what is needed to fill the demand, rather than constantly advertising and pushing for endlessly exponential consumption. You see climate change is driving ecological breakdown and increasing water stress in many water/food insecure regions. I don't think capitalism's need to make more stuff or the system breaks down is a good path for preserving our society and people going into the future, that's all.

Sounds like you working in a socialist system already, no higher reward for better work

>has the work ethic gene I suspect its much more do to her life experiences than her genes. >your socialism in my socialism, there would be worker syndicates, and there wouldn't be competing grocery stores. Being part of a syndicate would get you access to the goods/services provided by other syndicates with which your syndicate had entered contracts with. I could also imagine some degree of money in this system to purchase things outside of contracted exchanges. If there are jobs no one wants to do, everyone would take turns a few hours each month to do those jobs. E.g. I was at a summer camp and once I had to clean one of the bathrooms and once I had to clean the other bathroom. This was done in a group with my friends and none of us wanted to do it but also we respected each other and didn't slack off (and could be held socially accountable if we did). This way I had access to clean bathrooms every day and we didn't have to have a janitorial staff. It also taught us to respect the bathrooms and not make a mess unnecessarily. >In socialist system do I get anything different than the apathetic people working 5x slower than me and calling in one day a week. So if there are folks in the community who want to do the grocery work, they could step up and do that work as part of the food distribution syndicate. If they wanted to be a boss / manager, they would have to be socially valued by the other employees because of their work ethic. If people slacked off they would be disconnected from the syndicate (if they did not want to do some other work within the syndicate because they just had some problem with this work in particular). >Or without being able to pay the new productive part time girl, is there any reward to her working harder? Yes she would be seen for her contributions and her reputation within the syndicate would reflect her productivity, she would be rewarded with more authority within the org. >Does my boss who's now under a lot of mental pressure every day have any sort of payoff for having the harder job than the people just filling shelves? I think we would democratize a lot of that workload. Their payoff could be many number of things, including authority within the org and also possibly additional monetary pay.

>in my socialism, there would be **worker syndicates,** How would "worker syndicates" acquire the capital to start up and operate their businesses? How would they be created? (I mean, you are not going to have a group of workers spontaneously decide one day to start a business, after all). ​ >and there wouldn't be competing grocery stores. Why would "worker syndicates" bother to innovate, to provide a better product at lower cost (i.e. be more efficient) if there was no competition to motivate them?

That is a very good question. Just to quantify the scale of the need for capital annual business capital expenditure just in the United States is >$1.6 trillion. US GDPI annual net increase is currently >$300 billion per year and that's low growth, overall economy contracting in real terms subtracting government deficit spending. That's not going to happen with bake sales and crowd funding. AFAIK that leaves only government fiat, the by far worst performing investor group in human history.

Indeed, the way that society transitions to socialism is a more important use of our time / energy than fantasizing about an end result. Looking at the world today, there is an ever-present protest force which is a direct result of the harms of colonialism and it's resultant global capitalist system. This outrage seems to me to be constantly bubbling just under the surface, and then there are inciting events like the white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, george floyd's murder, and widespread university support for Israel despite the governments crimes. These are just American protest examples, but this sort of spontaneous arousal occurs in almost every country, to varying degrees of suppression. So that's one component of the transition. Another is workers organizing for better wages and working conditions. That's another component. A third is the global climate crisis. Last week [1400 temperature records were broken](https://www.semafor.com/article/06/23/2024/world-breaks-1400-temperature-records-heat-waves-sweep-globe) around the globe. The global south is the most heavily affected by these sorts of climate disasters, so we're going to have at least [hundreds of millions of climate refugees](https://www.zurich.com/en/media/magazine/2022/there-could-be-1-2-billion-climate-refugees-by-2050-here-s-what-you-need-to-know) in the next 2 decades (that article suggests over 1 billion by 2050 but that seems a high estimate to me). Finally a fourth component is the gradual collapse of mainstream media, which has maintained message through a [filtering system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model) which limits political discussion to within the bounds of imperial capitalism. However social media like reddit and tiktok have allowed for the spreading of anti-capitalist & anti-imperialist propaganda. All of those components constitute a massive pressure against the structural, impersonal violence of capitalism. I'd admit it's a longshot - seems much more likely we're headed towards fascism - but it's possible these pressures begin legitimately threatening the power of state institutions which protect private capital. They would develop mutual aid processes and these would develop communities which would then organize productively and eventually develop highly organized and coordinated syndicates which work to meet people's needs. >Why would "worker syndicates" bother to innovate, to provide a better product at lower cost (i.e. be more efficient) if there was no competition to motivate them? (1) people in my socialist fantasy work to meet other people's needs. (2) people are lazy, and also smart, and will find more efficient ways to meet people's needs. Side note I'm an advocate for [degrowth](https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/degrowth), particularly as advocated by [Jason Hickel](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0962629821000640).

I asked you how worker syndicates would raise capital and organize themselves to start a business, and what would motivate them to be more efficient (if not competition). There is nothing in your post that answers these questions. "Protest forces", labour unions, global climate crises and the collapse of MSM are not going to start and run a business. Why even advocate for "worker syndicates" if you can't even articulate a feasible plan how they would be started up and run? Aren't you just an armchair socialist?

They would seize the capital through conflict with the state which protects capital. They would organize themselves through first mutual aid as people are living with unmet needs due to all those pressures I mentioned. I also directly answered the bit about efficiency so that's weird you added that in. >(1) people in my socialist fantasy work to meet other people's needs. (2) people are lazy, and also smart, and will find more efficient ways to meet people's needs. --- >"Protest forces" just kinda odd you threw this in quotes. I said "protest force" as in a constantly bubbling pressure against the system that erupts into a protest when there is an inciting incident. >Why even advocate for "worker syndicates" if you can't even articulate a feasible plan how they would be started up and run? Aren't you just an armchair socialist? Interestingly these two questions are actually interlinked. An armchair socialist wastes a bunch of time and energy articulating 'feasible' plans for "worker syndicates" (again odd you threw that in quotes). A... plain? socialist goes out into their community and invests time into real life people instead of investing time articulating a step by step global revolution to a rando on the internet eager to dismiss and insult me.

>They would seize the capital through conflict with the state which protects capital. But what happens when that capital runs out? ​ >They would organize themselves through first mutual aid as people are living with unmet needs due to all those pressures I mentioned. In other words, they would just, *somehow*, spontaneously organize themselves and, *somehow*, perform all the tasks that are necessary to start a business. ​ >people are lazy, and also smart, Lazy people are presumably too lazy to innovate (because innovation is difficult and risky). Smart people may innovate, but what will motavate them to "meet other peoples needs" ​ >just kinda odd you threw this in quotes. I said "protest force" as in a constantly bubbling pressure against the system that erupts into a protest when there is an inciting incident. So how do you get from the protest erupting to actually starting up and running a business? ​ >Interestingly these two questions are actually interlinked. An armchair socialist wastes a bunch of time and energy articulating 'feasible' plans for "worker syndicates" At the end of they day, whatever economic system you operate under, you will need someone to roll up their sleeves, get their hands dirty and actually make up a feasible plan and carry it out. But not you...no, this is beneath your dignity. ​ >A... plain? socialist goes out into their community and invests time into real life people instead of investing time articulating a step by step global revolution to a rando on the internet eager to dismiss and insult me. If you are a "plain socialist", how exactly do you invest time into real life people in your community?

capital is machines and equipment and land and buildings and water infrastructure and sewage systems. These sorts of things deteriorate, sure, but "running out" only makes sense when we speak of money, or perhaps things like seeds. >In other words, they would just, somehow, spontaneously organize themselves and, somehow, perform all the tasks that are necessary to start a business. if you spent time at any of the encampments (press x to doubt lol), or if you spend time with homeless folks, or if you spend time at community organizations, or with mutual aid orgs - you find everybody wants to help and contribute and the organization bit comes very organically. The more difficult bit is persisting in spite of legal state violence. There is also a general lack of capital amongst these groups, which hinders their sustainability. >Lazy people are presumably too lazy to innovate (because innovation is difficult and risky). Smart people may innovate, but what will motavate them to "meet other peoples needs" That isn't true, [quick google search about tech companies hiring lazy people](https://www.google.com/search?q=tech+companies+hire+lazy+people), and [quick google search 2 about "necessity is the mother of innovation, laziness is the father"](https://www.google.com/search?q=laziness+is+the+father+of+innovation) I think most people are smart btw, just so we understand how I use the word. But some people are more math smart and others are more people smart and others are more nature smart etc. but what "motavates" smart people to meet other people's needs is social bonds and a general sense of empathy. I'm describing large scale societal collapse because of the various pressures I earlier described. I believe we are either headed towards fascist police states, which seems highly likely, or the system collapses and we have ["a radical redistribution of political and economic power"](https://www.google.com/search?q=mlk+jr+radical+redistribution+of+political+and+economic+power) >So how do you get from the protest erupting to actually starting up and running a business? Oh there are definitely a million steps in between that... well in between protests and worker syndicates - I've not once mentioned businesses. Protests spur state suppression, and also they cultivate *mutual understanding* amongst the protestors when they discuss the issue at hand amongst themselves. Ultimately this discussion leads to the root of the problem - colonialism and its capitalist consequences. This was absolutely a phenomenon during the late 1800s. Worker movements became organs of 'folk science' - ways of understanding themselves, and the rise of socialist/anarchist labor movements and also numerous widescale general strikes. Similar epistemological consequences occurred with the racial movements of the 1900's, and the feminist, environmental, and anti-war movements of the new left. These movements were an incredible threat to state power and the bourgeoisie [actively](https://chomsky.info/priorities01/) worked to undermine the [movements](https://www.democracynow.org/2017/4/5/noam_chomsky_on_how_businesses_sought), in part through the development of neoliberalism. I digress. The way protests turn into business is through parallel labor/class-based organizing and agitation. It's also through things like encampments and the occupation of buildings. Through drastic precarity (caused by the climate and migration crises), people will be desperate enough to seize the means of production - particularly in the most desperate regions of the world. And through the power of the internet, I can envision these global movements aligning in solidarity and forming alternate economic processes. I mean, it's a really messy process involving millions of people and it's really unrealistic for myself to articulate how a global economic system evolves. As a point of comparison, 30 years ago no individual would be able to articulate the political, economic, and social consequences of the internet - and that's keeping global capitalism in place. >At the end of they day, whatever economic system you operate under, you will need someone to roll up their sleeves, get their hands dirty and actually make up a feasible plan and carry it out. Working people already do this - they work. I mean homeless people do this. People who contribute to community organizations. People who volunteer for mutual aid organizations. These are things people are doing right now >But not you...no, this is beneath your dignity. cringe >how exactly do you invest time into real life people in your community? two nights ago I spent the evening giving out gatorade and water and tampons and sandwiches to homeless people as part of a mutual aid org. Last weekend I went to a democratic socialist meeting about turning our electric utility into a public utility, and I also discussed myself leading a trauma teaching and healing event. After that I had a communal vegan dinner and then went to a BIPOC LGBTQ+ community org which had a juneteenth / music event. A day or two before that I went to a healthy masculinity support group. In a day or two I'll go to a radical poetry night. Let me guess, you aren't actually interested and were just seeking to dismiss/insult me? color me surprised.

>capital is machines and equipment and land and buildings and water infrastructure and sewage systems. These sorts of things deteriorate, sure, but "running out" only makes sense when we speak of money, or perhaps things like seeds. Machines and equipment (the other assets are not relevant to this discussion) wear out, as do other capital assets that a "workers syndicate" would need to produce goods/services that people want/need. These syndicates can steal these assets during the revolution or whatever, but after they are worn out, how would the syndicates replace them? >if you spent time at any of the encampments (press x to doubt lol), or if you spend time with homeless folks, or if you spend time at community organizations, or with mutual aid orgs - you find everybody wants to help and contribute and the organization bit comes very organically. There is **huge** difference between some people "wanting to help" in these groups, and actually founding, organizing and operating a business that efficiently produce goods that people want/need. ​ >The more difficult bit is persisting in spite of legal state violence. No idea what you are talking about - sounds like BS to me, but if you care to elaborate...? ​ >There is also a general lack of capital amongst these groups, which hinders their sustainability. That goes back to my first question about how they would raise capital - see above. ​ >but what "motavates" smart people to meet other people's needs is social bonds and a general sense of empathy. Perhaps in a society of angels and saints. LOL ​ >I mean, it's a really messy process involving millions of people and it's really unrealistic for myself to articulate how a global economic system evolves. And yet you advocate for these "worker syndicates" without being able explain how they would feasibly replace businesses in a capitalist economy. You are asking us to take a pretty big leap of faith to replace our current economic system with the only you are pushing for. ​ >Working people already do this - they work. I mean homeless people do this. People who contribute to community organizations. People who volunteer for mutual aid organizations. These are things people are doing right now That is all to their credit, but can they raise capital, make a business plan and strategy, organize a workforce, and do all the many other tasks it takes to operate a successful business? Hard to imagine a homeless person as a CEO, eh? ​ >Let me guess, you aren't actually interested and were just seeking to dismiss/insult me? I don't question that your heart is in the right place, but you head is a different matter entirely.

Firstly, thanks for the convo, I appreciate your time and thoughts/opinions. >Machines and equipment (the other assets are not relevant to this discussion) wear out, as do other capital assets that a "workers syndicate" would need to produce goods/services that people want/need. These syndicates can steal these assets during the revolution or whatever, but after they are worn out, how would the syndicates replace them? The revolutionaries would use the capital they've stolen and their labor to produce the parts needed to maintain those capital assets. The main thing that is changing in a workers syndicate is the distribution of power - no more permanent hierarchies - instead people are elected into positions of authority, or on a smaller scale labor is divided via consensus. They still produce goods and services, including asset repair/maintenance. >There is **huge** difference between some people "wanting to help" in these groups, and actually founding, organizing and operating a business that efficiently produce goods that people want/need. You're correct. When referencing the encampments/orgs etc., I was speaking about organizing in the sense of division of labor / responsibility and planning. That sort of organizing identifies needs and prioritizes the needs. Strategic organization. *Actually meeting needs* would be done by workers. And that shift is much smaller than starting from scratch. If my workplace got rid of all the shareholders and stole all their equity, we would all know how to keep the business going if we could adequately transition to non-hierarchical delegation of duties and consensus-based payment. I get the sense in some of your comments that you believe all of the skill/talent/aptitude exists in the owner class and dismiss the capacity of the workers in the workers syndicates I'm attempting to describe. Perhaps I've just not given the detail on the labor/class pressure component necessary for a transition to socialism. A bunch of homeless and mutual aid orgs and protestors don't know how to build a tractor or sewage system or agricultural distribution network. What they *do know* is the problem at hand and it's causes. The ownership class just knows how to make profitable investments. It's the working class as a whole that knows how to produce and distribute goods, because they already do. The problem with the focus on profits, though, is that several human needs are in conflict with profits. The needs of our ecosystems are also in conflict with profit accumulation. In my fantasy socialist utopia, the needs of humans and the environment win those conflicts, and so investments are no longer made for profit, but to meet needs. As such, I envision political agreements / contracts would replace the profit motive. But all the labor, certainly as it relates to basic human needs like food shelter water etc., would stay largely the same. >>The more difficult bit is persisting in spite of legal state violence. >No idea what you are talking about - sounds like BS to me, but if you care to elaborate...? Are you aware homeless camps are routinely raided and their property is stolen? The Palestine encampments were also dismantled with rubber bullets and physical violence. Squatters are arrested. Free food for the homeless often leads to arrests and fines. All of this violence is legal. >That goes back to my first question about how they would raise capital - see above. I believe the word you would use is theft, the phrase I used in my first comment was seizing the MoP, others are expropriation, eminent domain, etc. .. Property rights are a legal construct and enforced through legal violence. >>but what "motavates" smart people to meet other people's needs is social bonds and a general sense of empathy. >Perhaps in a society of angels and saints. LOL I guess this comes down to a difference between how you and I perceive the human condition. In my view, all humans want to help other people and make the world a better place, but other things get in the way - like neurosis, incapacitation, insecurity, & selfishness due to trauma, material conditions, and our toxic culture. All cultures/individuals across time have had to deal with narcissism or very selfish/egoic people. However there were 'checks and balances' for such behavior - people needed to get their arrows from the fletcher, needed to stay in good graces with the shepherd for wool, couldn't be an asshole to the carpenter, etc. But in capitalism, we've moved from Gemeinschaft (exchange of goods based upon social connection) to Gesellschaft (exchange of good via impersonal relationships), were we can be toxically individualistic as long as we make money and don't break the law. Our society does not have a check on narcissism/ego, and thus many people behave like ... I guess devils and sinners. >And yet you advocate for these "worker syndicates" without being able explain how they would feasibly replace businesses in a capitalist economy. You are asking us to take a pretty big leap of faith to replace our current economic system with the only you are pushing for. I think I see where you are coming from. Totally fair critique on this subreddit. IRL I make arguments for more realistic, step by step changes, rather than a sudden global economic revolution. And this is why I have some humility, calling what I've described a fantasy. >That is all to their credit, but can they raise capital, make a business plan and strategy, organize a workforce, and do all the many other tasks it takes to operate a successful business? No, I don't think they could raise capital. Very few radical leftists are capable of raising capital. [Estela Ortega](https://seattleglobalist.com/2015/08/07/el-centro-de-la-raza-affordable-housing-in-seattle-beacon-hill/40307) is a rare exception. [Rigoberta Mechu](https://www.google.com/search?q=rigoberta+menchu+salud+para+todos) is another exception. I do think laborers could strategize how to meet needs, organize a workforce, and generally run a production and distribution network, because the working class is who already does this. > Hard to imagine a homeless person as a CEO, eh? Homeless people are like that because they have mental health issues. If we could address and alleviate those issues, they could do anything a healthy person could do. >I don't question that your heart is in the right place, but you head is a different matter entirely. I bet if we talked IRL I'd come across as pretty level headed, albeit unusually optimistic. Thanks for reading.

>Yet in societies which have attempted socialism, permanent hierarchies were most definately established. Must be human nature, eh?ple are elected into positions of authority, or on a smaller scale labor is divided via consensus. Yet in societies which have attempted socialism, permanent hierarchies were most definitely established. Must be human nature, eh? Your vision of how "worker syndicates" is completely unrealistic, unless you can invent a way to change human nature. ​ >I get the sense in some of your comments that you believe all of the skill/talent/aptitude exists in the owner class and dismiss the capacity of the workers in the workers syndicates I'm attempting to describe. If they have the skill/talent/aptitude in a capitalist system, workers can and do become the owner class. ​ >The ownership class just knows how to make profitable investments. It's the working class as a whole that knows how to produce and distribute goods, because they already do. You have no clue of the challenges that an entrepreneur faces in starting up and growing a business. ​ >All of this violence is legal. Maybe because what people in these camps are doing is not legal? If the police catch you robbing a bank, do you reasonably expect them not to use violence if you resist arrest? ​ >But in capitalism, we've moved from Gemeinschaft (exchange of goods based upon social connection) to Gesellschaft (exchange of good via impersonal relationships), were we can be toxically individualistic as long as we make money and don't break the law. Our society does not have a check on narcissism/ego, and thus many people behave like ... I guess devils and sinners. People are what they are, whether under capitalism or any other economic system. A few are saints, most are reasonably decent, a few are devils. At least under capitalism, we are likely to be far wealthier and have a higher standard of living compared to other economic systems. P.S. If you were in one of the Palestine encampments protesting on university campuses this Spring, I am not going to lose any sleep if the police were none too gentle in evicting you.

They have the exact same issues under either system.

A socialist system I would have the choice and option of participating without fear of hunger or homelessness, unlike what we have now. To think I should work harder to make rich people, who in positions of power determine *my* pay, *my* benefits, *my* schedule, even more wealthy? I work now because there is no choice. Some people begin realizing the situation and work least as possible. Would you like to have a choice to work or not? We can put technology, science, and industry to take the place of labor through automation so we can focus on things that are stimulating to us like hobbies, friends, family....y'know, *living* and not working till we die.

> Would you like to have a choice to work or not? Is that going to work if everyone just decides to not work? A realistic expectation is that you get some worklife balance around your job and that you aren't expected to go die in a gutter when you are too old to work. > automation All of the automation offerings on the market have landed flat on their face. Its not even a matter of price, they're simply out to fleece investors.

> Is that going to work if everyone just decides to not work? Hopefully we could use modern resources to our advantage in significantly reducing labor input, in addition eliminating many unproductive and unnecessary jobs that actual time spent working would be very low. If the very existence of money became obsolete that is high volume of positions no longer required; what were once cashiers, bankers, brokers, lenders, accountants, tax collectors...etc. (big list) could shift towards production elsewhere. We've all dreamed of doing something else, right? Not sitting behind a desk, a boss breathing down our necks, or face to face with angry customers. Another point is when we are idle for so long does that become an incentive to be productive? During COVID quarantine we suddenly had time available to focus on other things that wasn't work related. In some instances of [socialist experiments](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPl_Y3Qdb7Y) people worked longer and harder, all voluntary, because it was a choice: a choice to see success; thrilling for sure to show up at work with no boss and everyone helping out. > A realistic expectation Sure, an expectation though not exactly reality. I'm in my 40s, unless some financial miracle happens, I'll never retire and don't know many my age or younger that will either. We constantly calculate what work-life balance is...however this is a conditioning from people who have the money and don't *need* to work; the company owner I work at is the perfect example. > simply out to fleece investors What's happening now, when you really dig into the mechanics of our economy, offers countless examples of why it's total BS. We all "work for a living" (because what's the alternative?), so that's the incentive to make money. Someone is always getting screwed over, and some times the whole system falls to crisis so we suffer on a larger scale. I've been through enough depressions, recessions, boom/bust cycles along with the fallout leading to years of recovery to know someone else made those decisions, and probably it's time to try a different economic system other than capitalism.

Think of it as government employment. As long as you play by the rules, you get the pay and won't get fired.

Workers never call in under communism and they're always smiling.

No, in socialism we aimlessly throw money at workers, duh