Do Socialists hate making money?

[EEL123]

Again, I'm not a socialist myself, but I would never use the word "socialism" to describe anything else than a system where the means of production are collectively owned (or not owned at all, if you prefer). A basically capitalist economy with some redistribution and a public sector is social liberalism or social democracy, not socialism.

Well, that's a pretty dogmatic form of socialism. Not every ideology needs to be taken to its extreme. I'm a libertarian, for example, but I do not believe in the abolition of public funding for healthcare or unemployment benefits, even though it may be more ideologically consistent with the tenets of libertarianism. In the same way, many socialists do not see the need to be purists, and would accept a compromise between their goals and the reality of the current economic system. And when I refer to capitalism with redistribution and a public sector as socialism, I obviously do not mean a bit of redistribution and a small public sector (which I would support; yet I am far from socialistic); I mean a very substantial level of redistribution (like 90% tax rates on the rich) and a bloatedly enormous public sector which owns most major industries and so on. I think that that's close enough.

[MichaelReilly]

Again, I'm not a socialist myself, but I would never use the word "socialism" to describe anything else than a system where the means of production are collectively owned (or not owned at all, if you prefer). A basically capitalist economy with some redistribution and a public sector is social liberalism or social democracy, not socialism.

Well, that's a pretty dogmatic form of socialism. Not every ideology needs to be taken to its extreme. I'm a libertarian, for example, but I do not believe in the abolition of public funding for healthcare or unemployment benefits, even though it may be more ideologically consistent with the tenets of libertarianism. In the same way, many socialists do not see the need to be purists, and would accept a compromise between their goals and the reality of the current economic system. And when I refer to capitalism with redistribution and a public sector as socialism, I obviously do not mean a bit of redistribution and a small public sector (which I would support; yet I am far from socialistic); I mean a very substantial level of redistribution (like 90% tax rates on the rich) and a bloatedly enormous public sector which owns most major industries and so on. I think that that's close enough.

Alas, we agree.

(About your definition of ideologies, not the ideologies themselves. )

[Afrocentric]

In any case, although I'm not a socialist, the answer is that some types of socialism would operate without currency, while others would retain currency.

I don't understand how any type of economic system can function without money. It seems kind of contradictory.

[EEL123]

I don't understand how any type of economic system can function without money.

Barter, perhaps. Or the government (or someone else) centrally distributing resources, thus by-passing money. Or collective ownership so nobody has to buy anything. None of them would work very well. But it's not impossible.

[PaleRider]

I don't understand how any type of economic system can function without money.

Barter, perhaps. Or the government (or someone else) centrally distributing resources, thus by-passing money. Or collective ownership so nobody has to buy anything. None of them would work very well. But it's not impossible.

Money replaced the barter system bc it didnt work well (people can never agree on a proper chicken exchange rate i guess) so we would be taking a great developmental step backwards if we went there. Centrally distributing resources never really works well, see Soviet Union, Maoist China for blatant examples. Collective ownership also never works well on a large scale for obvious reasons. Plus, in most communist societies collective ownership is usually forced and forced communities generally dont work.

[PaleRider]

No, we want to abolish money, along with life, Chinese food and compound interest...

Im with ya on the Chinese food part

[Amazeroth]

No, we want to abolish money, along with life, Chinese food and compound interest...

Im with ya on the Chinese food part

Sorry, but that's the part where I really disagree.

[soysauce]

No, we want to abolish money, along with life, Chinese food and compound interest...

Im with ya on the Chinese food part

I couldn't live in a world without lemon Chicken

OR...Cheese toast...

[Aquinas]

I will never accept or support Socialism, but I have to wonder, do Socialists actually hate the idea of making money or do they want to see EVERYBODY make the same amount of money, regardless of skills and other qualifications?

Socialists have never been opposed to making things and providing services. That is what humans have always done, and that is how living standards have been massively increased across most of the world. Few socialists want to abolish money; currency, after all, is a means of exchange and not in itself an instrument of exploitation.

What socialists are interested in is how the economic system operates and how it distributes wealth. They note that, under modern capitalism, workers are manipulated out of the true value of their labour because economic power is disproportionately concentrated in the hands of a wealthy elite who largely own and control the means of production. Capitalism produces ever-increasing inequalities in wealth and opportunity. For this and other reasons, it tends to divide society and make people very unhappy. Even those at the top. Never forget how many miserable millionaires there are out there. What does that say for the values of capitalism and "Greed is Good"?

Socialists aspire for a society where wealth is more fairly divided, and economic activity is undertaken along more co-operative and humane lines, where everybody is offered rewarding, creative work which offers them the opportunity to achieve their potential. Karl Marx's ideal was "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". An attempt by a government authority to enforce that doctrine too dogmatically would probably hurt the motivation to work and require an intolerable degree of coercion. Nevertheless, as a guiding moral principle it is a good one, and I personally believe that when social and economic arrangements become fairer, individuals tend to become more altruistic in the management of their personal affairs.

Increasingly now, socialists are concerned to ensure environmental concerns are given greater consideration in economic decision making. More generally, they want to do something for those who are disadvantaged in life, whether we are talking here about the elderly, sick and disabled, or social/cultural groups who are discriminated against.

But anyway, to sum up, much could be said about what socialism is about, but no, socialists don't "hate making money". It is just they don't like the way it is being made.

[Afrocentric]

What socialists are interested in is how the economic system operates and how it distributes wealth. They note that, under modern capitalism, workers are manipulated out of the true value of their labour because economic power is disproportionately concentrated in the hands of a wealthy elite who largely own and control the means of production. Capitalism produces ever-increasing inequalities in wealth and opportunity. For this and other reasons, it tends to divide society and make people very unhappy. Even those at the top. Never forget how many miserable millionaires there are out there. What does that say for the values of capitalism and "Greed is Good"?

Capitalism rewards people for their hard work and labor skills. There is nothing wrong at all about being paid more than somebody else and if the workers feel like they're being manipulated, they can obviously leave or join/form a union.

Socialists aspire for a society where wealth is more fairly divided, and economic activity is undertaken along more co-operative and humane lines, where everybody is offered rewarding, creative work which offers them the opportunity to achieve their potential.

Why should the CEO of Coca Cola be paid as much as the janitor at WalMart? That's what I don't get; Socialists seem to think the amount of labor required for each is exactly the same when in reality it's not. Does it make sense to pay a brain surgeon, somebody who has to go to school for at minimum 8 years and then do a residency the same amount of money as a birthday clown? If you're telling me it's somehow "inhumane" that Bipo the clown gets paid $10/hour opposed to Joe the surgeon who makes $75,000/year then you're crazy in my opinion.

Nevertheless, as a guiding moral principle it is a good one, and I personally believe that when social and economic arrangements become fairer, individuals tend to become more altruistic in the management of their personal affairs.

Could it be that perhaps Socialism, like Capitalism, can also bread those "evil" habits you described earlier? Maybe it's human nature that causes us to be greedy or altruists; not an economic system.

Increasingly now, socialists are concerned to ensure environmental concerns are given greater consideration in economic decision making. More generally, they want to do something for those who are disadvantaged in life, whether we are talking here about the elderly, sick and disabled, or social/cultural groups who are discriminated against.

Capitalism has been proven to lift those in poverty out of it and into the upper classes. Society's that adhere to a more Capitalist view are more likely to have greater upward mobility as opposed to those that lean more towards Socialism.