To me, this gets to the heart of Socialism. Even if you don't subscribe to the notion of authentic satisfaction, etc, which I don't myself, the fact is that Socialism, at heart, concerns the character of labor. Historically, the term has been used to describe theories of production, NOT theories of distribution (which is what Republicans here want you to believe- Socialism is just about redistribution of wealth, etc.) Distribution is part of the picture, sometimes, maybe even most of the time, but strictly speaking, it's not an essential element. As the great Socialist (even Hayek, of all people, calls him a "wise man") R.H. Tawney said,
"What is important is not that all men should receive the same pecuniary income. It is that the surplus resources of society should be so husbanded and applied that it is a matter of minor significance whether they should receive it or not." Similarly, look at Marx's famous line from his Critique of the Gotha Program: "
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." A lot of clowns who want to slander Marx take this quote as a sign that Marx wants crushing, conformist equality where everyone is forced to be the same and rationed out the exact same resources, when, if you actually read it closely, the quote itself clearly assumes all manner of diversity and thus, forms of inequality, including in the case of resources. The kind of egalitarianism that Socialism is committed to is centrally a kind of baseline quality of life, and thus basic equality of opportunity. This is what separates Socialism from Capitalism.
Same goes for statism- once again, Republicans and the modern Right in general wants people to believe that Socialism is essentially about rampant government expansion and state control. This is simply not true. Historically, government regulation or oversight of industry was seen as a means, not an end- it only became seen as an end relatively recently, which is a big mistake. Some Socialists ended up becoming Statists due to the clear successes (and there were successes, which the Right loves to ignore) that came from nationalizing or regulating some industries, ignoring the failures elsewhere, which, despite being often overstated by the Right, do exist and can't be ignored. Once you see state control as means to a particular end- the transformation of labor- you're free to apply it where it works and reject it where it doesn't.
At bottom, the Socialist argument is that work should be functional, NOT acquisitive. Humans can be both incredibly greedy and incredibly altruistic. We aren't the utility-maximizing, perfectly rational, atomistic actors that free marketers and much of the Right wants us to be- we're homeostatic creatures who employ what Herbert Simon calls "satisficing reason." Whatever human nature we have, both history and modern science demonstrates it to neither be purely individualist and greedy, nor purely generous and communal, and thus not strongly tilted enough in the direction that makes ultra-capitalist arguments worthwhile.
The goal is to cultivate this altruism through public culture, again, not specifically or necessarily through State imposition, making work a form of public service and not primarily about seeking profit, and involving the recognition that even our most individualistic self-interest can only be served interdependently. That is what it all comes down to. It's not about eliminating all markets, enterprise, ambition, diversity of lifestyles, or even all inequality of resources. That's also where Socialism's historical focus on the conditions and dignity of work come from- the end of child labor, increased safety and comfort standards in the workplace, proper pay/vacation/etc, are all products of specifically Socialist thought (through unions,) and had to be fought for and taken from the capitalists.
@
Type Username Here @
Broke Wave @
Broletariat @
No_bammer_weed @
VictorVonDoom
Some of you may be specifically interested in these ideas, whether you agree or not.
Same can said for socialism in Brazil(which shipped more slaves than the U.S.). Or Communism in China which enslaved more than both the U.S. and Brazil... i don't see what you are getting at with this slavery/profit motive correlation...
As opposed to the "fukk em" motive in other systems that included slavery?(which is every other system)
