[checkstripe]

I am new to socialism and have a few questions if that's OK?

I am wondering why it seems that many of the lower class and uneducated shy away from working? And in a socialist society how would it be better for this group of people?

What is the difference between communism and socialism? As when people ask what my views are I say socialist but they then say "ahh you are a communist"

Can there still be freedom of religion in Socialism?

If a country was socialist would it have strict immigration controls?

Would most appreciate any answers.

[Decky]

I am wondering why it seems that many of the lower class and uneducated shy away from working?

Because there aren't any jobs. How can you work in such a situation?

The capitalists like to keep lots of people unemployed in the reserve army of Labour this keep wages down and discourages unionisation.

If we had full employment the capitalists would have to compete with each other for employees, this would drive up wages. Obviously they don't want that so they have a nice layer of structural unemployment.

And in a socialist society how would it be better for this group of people?

There would be 100 percent employment. You would turn up at a job centre and there would actually be jobs.

You would have a legal right (and a corresponding legal responsibility) to work.

Training and education would also be more readily available and payed for by the state, allowing people to develop the skills to work in an area of their choice.

What is the difference between communism and socialism? As when people ask what my views are I say socialist but they then say "ahh you are a communist"

Communism= a classless stateless society.
Socialism= The state being used for the benefit of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie (these two groups interests are opposed if you work for one you work against the other).

Lenin teaches us (in the state and revolution if you want to do some reading) that the state is always a tool for the oppression of one class by another. At the moment it is used by the rich advance their interests at the expense of the poor.

This would be turned on it's head in a socialist state.

Marxist socialists believe that post revolution we will have a socialist state, which will then whiter away once capitalism is destroyed and leave us with the Communist classless stateless society.

Can there still be freedom of religion in Socialism?

I don't see why not, although personally I would prefer the freedom from religion.

If a country was socialist would it have strict immigration controls?

It would depend entirely on the situation of the country, not all socialist nations were/ will be identical.

The United States and Switzerland are both capitalist but have different immigration policies for example. There is no reason to think this would be any different in socialist countries.

[Eran]

If a country was socialist would it have strict immigration controls?

The issue with socialist countries isn't so much immigration controls, but emigration controls. Non-socialist countries rarely have any restrictions on emigration. Socialist countries, by contrast, routinely and often strictly limit emigration.

The reason is obvious - socialism has so far been, without exception, a total economic disaster. While certain production metrics might suggest periods of growth, the socialist system is decidedly NOT based on satisfying consumer preferences. It should surprise nobody then that consumers tend to be very unhappy in socialist countries, and tend to leave them given half a chance...

[Negotiator]

I am wondering why it seems that many of the lower class and uneducated shy away from working?

There have been extreme efforts over the centuries to justify economic circumstances that lead to quite a lot of unemployment. Because this keeps wages low and allows to split the people into two groups: the employed and the unemployed.

The current economic ideology for unemployment is Monetarism. Based on the initial work of Milton Friedman and others, this is another instance of an economic theory that, as its very base, claims there is no such thing as involuntary unemployment.

This claim is obviously riddiculous, but thats what many economists claim: you only have to lower your wages enough, then you will get work. Nevermind that your reduced wages lead to less consumption, and thus less work is needed. Or that there is a limit below which you cannot lower your wage, because below that you are below your limit of physical needs (i.e. enough food).

Many economists, like Paul Krugman, repeatedly point out that Monetarism, as an economic theory, is a riddiculous construct in theory and is a total failure in practice and always has been, from the very beginning. But still its the by far dominating economic theory. Not among economists themselves, but when it comes to economists who are actually heard.

What is the difference between communism and socialism?

I dont know what "communism" is. Everyone has a different definition of this term. A term that isnt clearly defined is useless to me.

I am a socialist, i.e. I want a society without dependency and exploitation.

More precisely, I'm a christian, thus I'm a democrat (Jesus explicity demands that who rules has to serve those he rules over, thus any modern christian, if they take Jesus seriously, has to be a democrat), and since I'm a democrat, I'm a liberal (I want people to be free to decide how they want to lead their own lives) and a socialist (I want a society without dependency and exploitation), since democracy cannot persist (and doesnt make sense) without liberalism and socialism.

I definitely oppose the idea of a society without money. Such a society would have to be a planned economy, meaning it would have to be regulated by a bureaucracy. I dont want to be ruled by the rich, but I also dont want to be ruled by bureaucrats. Thus I definitely want a free market, not a planned economy.

Free market is NOT the same as capitalism, because capitalism is (a) the idea that you can make money out of money (b) the dependency of the workers on the investors.

I want to combat capitalism through democratisation of the economy. That means if you have some sort of business and you're alone, you have full control just like it is now. But the more employees you get, the less the success of your business is your own doing, thus these people should have a say in the future of the business, too.

Can there still be freedom of religion in Socialism?

If you define socialism as "a society without depencency and exploitation", it has to be democratic and it has to conform to all human rights, including freedom of religion.

If a country was socialist would it have strict immigration controls?

It would have to have to conform to human rights. No modern industrialized country conforms to it, because there is a huge pressure from the poor countries - the countries that get exploited by the rich countries - of people who want to flee the danger of dying through hunger.

[Daktoria]

Socialists believe that people don't work because of social alienation. That is they've become obsessed with commodity fetishism and have forgotten about the relations of production. By redistributing the means of production, they count on historical materialism as a guideline for what to do.

What socialists don't realize is past performance doesn't guarantee future results. This means there's a lack of adaptation in a socialist society when things go bad, and people are expected to sacrifice themselves for the good of the collective. Socialists believe the base of nature determines the superstructure of society, so this lack of adaptation is viewed as unavoidable since certain people are born into bad natural bases.

[Someone5]

I am wondering why it seems that many of the lower class and uneducated shy away from working?

I'm not sure what you mean; why do you think the working class chooses not to work? Most of the working class who aren't working are not working because they can't find work or have familial obligations that prevent them from holding normal employment (taking care of small children, sick relatives, elderly parents, etc). I guess you're asking why workers aren't thrilled about accepting any crappy dead-end meaningless job they can grab? Well, the answer to that is obvious. Who likes to work for someone else's benefit, in something you find meaningless? People only work meaningless and degrading jobs when they don't have a choice, for reasons that seem self-evident to me.

Ask yourself this; why would you expect a capitalist to work without making a profit? I don't think you ought to expect a capitalist to work without profit--in the same way that I don't think you should expect people to be thrilled about working a meaningless job that only covers their expenses.

And in a socialist society how would it be better for this group of people?

They could find meaningful work; they would have no barrier preventing them from pursuing that which they enjoy doing. In a capitalist society, people face numerous barriers--access to capital, access to the workplace, access to education, access to housing... all of these things keep people from working in fields they enjoy working in.

What is the difference between communism and socialism?

Communism is a goal (a society free of coercion and material disassociation), socialism is a set of models designed to bring society to that state. Granted, there is a great deal of debate over the precise details of that communism would look like, and even greater disagreement over the correct form of socialism to bring society to that state.

As when people ask what my views are I say socialist but they then say "ahh you are a communist"

They misunderstand what the terms mean.

Can there still be freedom of religion in Socialism?

Sure, yeah, provided that the religious institutions are not attempting to undermine the socialist model. Given how effectively religions have been able to serve slave societies, feudal societies, and capitalist societies... it is quite likely that religions would be capable of serving socialist societies too.

If a country was socialist would it have strict immigration controls?

Probably not. Again, depends on the precise sort of socialism you're talking about. The anarchist models certainly wouldn't.

[Soixante-Retard]

I am wondering why it seems that many of the lower class and uneducated shy away from working?

Benjamin Franklin can answer that:

I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer. There is no country in the world where so many provisions are established for them; so many hospitals to receive them when they are sick or lame, founded and maintained by voluntary charities; so many alms-houses for the aged of both sexes, together with a solemn general law made by the rich to subject their estates to a heavy tax for the support of the poor. Under all these obligations, are our poor modest, humble, and thankful; and do they use their best endeavours to maintain themselves, and lighten our shoulders of this burthen? — On the contrary, I affirm that there is no country in the world in which the poor are more idle, dissolute, drunken, and insolent. The day you passed that act, you took away from before their eyes the greatest of all inducements to industry, frugality, and sobriety, by giving them a dependance on somewhat else than a careful accumulation during youth and health, for support in age or sickness. In short, you offered a premium for the encouragement of idleness, and you should not now wonder that it has had its effect in the increase of poverty.

In other words, threat of poverty acts as a deterrent from entering and as an incentive of getting away from poverty.

At the margin, when you increase the appeal of not working (by increasing the monetary amount of State received benefits, for example) compared to working then, ceteris paribus, you will get more people not working and less people working.

[Eran]

I'm not sure what you mean; why do you think the working class chooses not to work?

Just compare employment amongst inner-city welfare recipients with that of illegal immigrants. If the latter, despite language, culture and legal obstacles, are able to find employment, the only conclusion is that those Americans who don't aren't really trying.

To be fair, there is nothing wrong with choosing to wait, unemployed, for a good opportunity to come up, as long as we recognize that such waiting is a choice, and ought to be funded from savings or mutual-aid.

In addition, we should recognise how government regulations severely limit the ability of most people to find employment or become self-employed. Labour regulations consistently raise to cost of employing people, thereby limiting the supply of jobs.

Professional licensing and numerous commercial and financial regulations further put obstacles in the way of people to becoming self-sufficient. It isn't all, or even mostly, the fault of poor people.

Ask yourself this; why would you expect a capitalist to work without making a profit? I don't think you ought to expect a capitalist to work without profit--in the same way that I don't think you should expect people to be thrilled about working a meaningless job that only covers their expenses.

Setting aside crony capitalists (to which everybody on my side strongly objects), capitalists, while expecting (and certainly hoping) to make profit, do so at their own risk and expense.

They could find meaningful work; they would have no barrier preventing them from pursuing that which they enjoy doing. In a capitalist society, people face numerous barriers--access to capital, access to the workplace, access to education, access to housing... all of these things keep people from working in fields they enjoy working in.

Historic experience shows otherwise. Absent government-placed obstacles, gaining access to capital, workplace, education and housing would have been much much easier. All of the above are regulated in ways that make them much more expensive or limited.

In socialist countries, everybody could have a job in which to pretend to work while government bureaucrats pretended to pay. That's why people consistently wanted to leave socialist countries.

Probably not. Again, depends on the precise sort of socialism you're talking about.

It depends on available options. If the entire world was socialist, or if all non-socialist nations restricted immigration into their territory, there would be no need for immigration (actually, emigration) control. But in the presence of available options, people seem to always prefer being exploited by capitalists over living in a socialist paradise...

[Someone5]

Just compare employment amongst inner-city welfare recipients with that of illegal immigrants. If the latter, despite language, culture and legal obstacles, are able to find employment, the only conclusion is that those Americans who don't aren't really trying.

There are other conclusions too; perhaps they simply aren't willing to violate US labor law. Or their tolerance for exploitation is lower.

To be fair, there is nothing wrong with choosing to wait, unemployed, for a good opportunity to come up, as long as we recognize that such waiting is a choice, and ought to be funded from savings or mutual-aid.

It ought to be funded publicly, so as not to depress wages.

In addition, we should recognise how government regulations severely limit the ability of most people to find employment or become self-employed. Labour regulations consistently raise to cost of employing people, thereby limiting the supply of jobs.

There's never been any significant evidence of this. If hiring someone new is so marginally profitable for an employer that the cost of the labor regulations keep them from hiring for the position, then the position probably isn't worth filling (and would probably be eliminated in short order by the variability of the market). In other words, the cost of the labor regulations aren't even significant next to the cost of the wages they would need to pay the new hire--if the new hire would only be working enough to pay his own wage (but not enough to cover the cost of the regulation), there's no profit in hiring him anyway.

Back here in reality, companies only hire when they have demand, and the "burden of labor regulations" aren't substantial enough to keep them from hiring when demand dictates it. One might have a decent argument that labor regulations increase the cost of goods, but that's why you need to increase wages when you increase regulations--so that consumer demand is not affected.

That formula works... when we impose tariffs on products not produced according to our own labor standards. It does not work in the context of free trade, because then companies will simply shift production overseas and import.

Professional licensing

Is probably the only situation where your argument might be sort of true, and that's because it's a policy intentionally created to restrict labor.

and numerous commercial and financial regulations

I'm not sure why you would conflate that with professional licensing; their impact is not similar.

Setting aside crony capitalists (to which everybody on my side strongly objects), capitalists, while expecting (and certainly hoping) to make profit, do so at their own risk and expense.

You may "object" to the crony capitalists, but you forward policy that favors them. Your side's objection to crony capitalism is nothing more than empty moral rhetoric.

That aside, you missed my point here. Why should you expect someone to work just enough to pay their own expenses and no more? Risk has nothing to do with this. This is psychology here--why should someone work if they aren't going to benefit from it? If the only thing they've got to look forward to is the privilege of continuing to line someone else's pocket without any benefit for themselves?

There's no point in working if you don't benefit from it. And the voluntarily unemployed seem to recognize that much.

Historic experience shows otherwise. Absent government-placed obstacles, gaining access to capital, workplace, education and housing would have been much much easier.

Evidence very, very clearly shows otherwise. Look at the 19th century for an example of that. Absent civil society--and while you may have a problem with this, it does include public regulations--those with capital accumulate more, always at the expense of those without. Social mobility freezes in the presence of capitalists with the absence of civil intervention. That is very, very clear from the data in the past, and more importantly the examples in the modern third world.

But I wouldn't really expect that libertarians would be able to grasp that concept--because your ideology prevents you from recognizing that the government has different factions with different objectives; some of which benefit the people, others benefit the capitalists. Government in the capitalist mode operates as you describe--your "crony capitalists"--but you fail to recognize that government can also operate in the civil mode--what used to be referred to as "sewer socialists". Government operating in the civil mode is, while not really ideal, certainly a step in the right direction, and really the only stopgap between the predations of capitalists and the wants of the workers.

In socialist countries, everybody could have a job in which to pretend to work while government bureaucrats pretended to pay. That's why people consistently wanted to leave socialist countries.

If the government owns the business, it's not socialism. Socialism is nothing other than the workers controlling their own work. Everything else that we have seen since the start of the 20th century has been state capitalism. Including the self-described "communist" states like the Soviet Union or China, which were about as "communist" as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is "democratic".

It depends on available options. If the entire world was socialist, or if all non-socialist nations restricted immigration into their territory, there would be no need for immigration (actually, emigration) control. But in the presence of available options, people seem to always prefer being exploited by capitalists over living in a socialist paradise...

Given that there has never been a socialist state--there has never been a long-term state where the workers controlled themselves--your argument is faulty. If a government bureaucrat controls the workers, that's still state capitalism. The state has simply absorbed the capitalists. If the state still owns the capital, it will still behave like a capitalist.

[ralfy]

Probably best to show data first on pct of members of the "lower class" who are not working.

[Eran]

There are other conclusions too; perhaps they simply aren't willing to violate US labor law.

Labour laws work the other way - they give advantage to the domestic-born over foreigners. That illegal immigrants are able to not only find jobs, but find them despite various obstacles (legal as well as cultural) puts Americans' inability to find jobs in question.

Or their tolerance for exploitation is lower.

In other words, they are unwilling to work for the low wages that illegals are getting, right?

It ought to be funded publicly, so as not to depress wages.

In other words, it is legitimate to force those who do work to pay for those who choose not to. Does that make sense to you?

If hiring someone new is so marginally profitable for an employer that the cost of the labor regulations keep them from hiring for the position, then the position probably isn't worth filling (and would probably be eliminated in short order by the variability of the market).

Or perhaps it is an entry-level position, giving an unskilled labourer valuable experience that will allow them to step up the career ladder. Through artificially inflating the cost of labour, government effectively removes the lowest rung in that ladder. If you can jump straight to the second rung - great for you. Otherwise, you are stuck at the bottom.

In other words, the cost of the labor regulations aren't even significant next to the cost of the wages they would need to pay the new hire

How do you know?

I'm not sure why you would conflate that with professional licensing; their impact is not similar.

They are very similar. Professional licensing prohibit individuals from working without government approval. Commercial regulations often prohibit companies from getting started or expanding (or makes it much more expensive to do so). Financial regulations impede small companies from raising funds from the public.

You may "object" to the crony capitalists, but you forward policy that favors them.

On the contrary. I just gave a list of issues over which the policy I favour would hurt cronies. I also oppose all bailouts, tariffs and quotas, additional policies favouring cronies.

why should someone work if they aren't going to benefit from it?

Indeed they should not. And will not. Which is why I conclude that those who choose to take employment, do so precisely because in their minds (although perhaps not in your mind), they are benefiting from that work. Those who voluntarily choose to remain unemployed on their own dime are perfectly welcome to do so. But I reject forcing others to pay for that choice. If an unemployed person didn't have their choices subsidies by force, their threshold for when a job is in their benefit would shift.

Evidence very, very clearly shows otherwise. Look at the 19th century for an example of that. Absent civil society--and while you may have a problem with this, it does include public regulations--those with capital accumulate more, always at the expense of those without. Social mobility freezes in the presence of capitalists with the absence of civil intervention. That is very, very clear from the data in the past, and more importantly the examples in the modern third world.

As far as I know, 19th century America was characterised by both great social mobility (most Robber Barons had very humble origins) and economic growth and development. What data do you have in mind to the contrary?

Socialism is nothing other than the workers controlling their own work.

So what do you see as the impediment in our current society for workers to prefer joining coops and other worker-controlled enterprises at the expense of being exploited by capitalists?