Little-Acorn
Well-Known Member
(Adapted from an earlier thread. The "Hows" and "Whys" deserve their own examination.)
--------------------------------------------------
Socialism and communism are not identical, but the differences between them are far less important than the similarities.
Both feature schemes where a central government (which isn't in communist plans but is always brought in when someone actually tries to run a communist government) judges how much people should be paid. The pay is usually based on what the govt decides they need rather than by how much they contributed.
This results in workers realizing after a few years, that working harder won't benefit them much. Some work harder anyway, others decide to slack off and/or spend more time with family etc. Then as time goes on, the harder workers see the others' example, and while most keep working hard, a few more slack off. They cycle keeps repeating with a few more reducing their effort, then later a few more etc.
Socialist or communist societies usually wind up deteriorating, because there is little incentive to work hard, aside from personal work ethics. And even those with good ethics, tend to deteriorate over a long period of time, for similar reasons.
The long, concentrated periods of difficult work, effort, and sacrifice that advance a society, come more and more from only the diminishing number who maintain their hard-work ethic and loyalty in the face of increasing indifference and lack of material reward. While those people are rightly regarded as heros or pillars, there is far less incentive to do what they do, in socialistic or communist societies. The incentive is greater in free-market societies where people can work for the chance of great rewards in addition to great moral satisfaction.
So socialistic or communistic societies invaribly lose, in competition with free-market societies. For that reason, they abhor competition, and often expend great effort to crush it or isolate themselves from it... only to lose even more from its lack.
American congressmen and other political animals, often lost track of their real jobs - protecting people's rights and defending them against theft, fraud, and coercion. And they take the easier road of getting re-elected by taking things from small numbers of the more affluent, and giving them away to larger number of the less affluent.
As this scheme gets enacted into law, it quickly deteriorates to a pattern similar to what I said above: deciding what pay people get based on what they "need" rather than what they earn. In some countries, this is done by making the government, the official employer. In others (such as the U.S.), it's done by letting the government take money out of people paychecks (with far more taken from those who earn a lot), and simultaneoulsy set up programs to pay out to those who earn less. The result is the same: Government decides who gets paid how much, usually according to what they "need" rather than what they earn.
The politicians who set this up, often didn't intend to implement socialism. But what they wind up with, isn't much different from it. More importantly, the ultimate results are no different, either.
--------------------------------------------------
Socialism and communism are not identical, but the differences between them are far less important than the similarities.
Both feature schemes where a central government (which isn't in communist plans but is always brought in when someone actually tries to run a communist government) judges how much people should be paid. The pay is usually based on what the govt decides they need rather than by how much they contributed.
This results in workers realizing after a few years, that working harder won't benefit them much. Some work harder anyway, others decide to slack off and/or spend more time with family etc. Then as time goes on, the harder workers see the others' example, and while most keep working hard, a few more slack off. They cycle keeps repeating with a few more reducing their effort, then later a few more etc.
Socialist or communist societies usually wind up deteriorating, because there is little incentive to work hard, aside from personal work ethics. And even those with good ethics, tend to deteriorate over a long period of time, for similar reasons.
The long, concentrated periods of difficult work, effort, and sacrifice that advance a society, come more and more from only the diminishing number who maintain their hard-work ethic and loyalty in the face of increasing indifference and lack of material reward. While those people are rightly regarded as heros or pillars, there is far less incentive to do what they do, in socialistic or communist societies. The incentive is greater in free-market societies where people can work for the chance of great rewards in addition to great moral satisfaction.
So socialistic or communistic societies invaribly lose, in competition with free-market societies. For that reason, they abhor competition, and often expend great effort to crush it or isolate themselves from it... only to lose even more from its lack.
American congressmen and other political animals, often lost track of their real jobs - protecting people's rights and defending them against theft, fraud, and coercion. And they take the easier road of getting re-elected by taking things from small numbers of the more affluent, and giving them away to larger number of the less affluent.
As this scheme gets enacted into law, it quickly deteriorates to a pattern similar to what I said above: deciding what pay people get based on what they "need" rather than what they earn. In some countries, this is done by making the government, the official employer. In others (such as the U.S.), it's done by letting the government take money out of people paychecks (with far more taken from those who earn a lot), and simultaneoulsy set up programs to pay out to those who earn less. The result is the same: Government decides who gets paid how much, usually according to what they "need" rather than what they earn.
The politicians who set this up, often didn't intend to implement socialism. But what they wind up with, isn't much different from it. More importantly, the ultimate results are no different, either.