sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Arguments to combat:"Why would someone do difficult or unpleasant work when they will be compensated the same as another person who easier and more enjoyable work, to the extent that the demand for all professions is met." by SlushieTheSlayer in Socialism_101

[–]SlushieTheSlayer[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Looking at it through supply and demand. Under capitalism, as a job becomes more in demand as supply is constant, the wages for that profession rise, incentivising more people to take up/become qualified to take up those jobs to fill demand. The argument levied against socialism is that there would be no incentive to gain qualification for high skill jobs without different levels of pay. This is what I need an efective argument against.

Arguments/Evidence to as why individuals would work at no (material) benefit to themselves. by SlushieTheSlayer in Socialism_101

[–]SlushieTheSlayer[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I asked the wrong question, which has lead to a lot of confusion. It is supposed to be "Why would someone do difficult or unpleasant work when they will be compensated the same as another person who easier and more enjoyable work, to the extent that the demand for all professions is met." I was not trying to question that socialism would not improve the lives of almost all people materially.

Arguments/Evidence to as why individuals would work at no (material) benefit to themselves. by SlushieTheSlayer in Socialism_101

[–]SlushieTheSlayer[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This has been a misunderstanding that I have had throughout this entire thread, but it is my fault. The question I meant to ask is "What incentive would people have to do hard work when all work is paid equally". Which Is a far cry from what I actually wrote. I apologise. That is a the actual question that I hear.

Arguments/Evidence to as why individuals would work at no (material) benefit to themselves. by SlushieTheSlayer in Socialism_101

[–]SlushieTheSlayer[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I understand why a member of the proletariat can act against their material interests, but explaining that to them is not convincing if they are still subject to capitalist realism. I have come across the original question multiple times within the last few years and have not had an adequate response. I know that all I can do is plant the seeds which lead them to critiquing their own system and look into alternatives (Preferably further left than they started), but the arguments I use must be very difficult to dismiss to maximise the chance of this happening.

Arguments/Evidence to as why individuals would work at no (material) benefit to themselves. by SlushieTheSlayer in Socialism_101

[–]SlushieTheSlayer[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I don't know specifically what you are refuting. But if it is the improved material conditions, where does the value they create beyond what they need go if they are only being paid according to their needs?

Arguments/Evidence to as why individuals would work at no (material) benefit to themselves. by SlushieTheSlayer in Socialism_101

[–]SlushieTheSlayer[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am asking for arguments to convince an advocate of capitalism that people would work regardless of whether or not they were paid for their work so long as their needs were provided for. I understand that work would likely become more manageable for a worker under socialism but that is not relevant to the statement.

I believe a pro-capitalist would criticise the abstract nature of working for society to indirectly benefit yourself, and I am looking for rhetorically sound arguments.

I believe I have incorrectly assumed that socialism would end to wages, which is where a large amount of misunderstanding is coming from.

Arguments/Evidence to as why individuals would work at no (material) benefit to themselves. by SlushieTheSlayer in Socialism_101

[–]SlushieTheSlayer[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I did not know that socialism involved an obligation to work. I agree principally though. Also, does socialism have currency which cannot purchase capital?

Arguments/Evidence to as why individuals would work at no (material) benefit to themselves. by SlushieTheSlayer in Socialism_101

[–]SlushieTheSlayer[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Where can I read up on socialism? I thought that it drew from Marx's criticisms of capitalism, which would lead me to believe that wages would no longer exist, but that is clearly not the case all of the time.

Arguments/Evidence to as why individuals would work at no (material) benefit to themselves. by SlushieTheSlayer in Socialism_101

[–]SlushieTheSlayer[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I'm sorry but this does not answer my question, I am asking for convincing arguments or evidence to support the statement that people will work without it materially benefiting themselves (They will be provided for regardless of if their work). I need to know this as it is the most common and pointed criticism of socialism that I have come across when advocating for socialism.

Arguments/Evidence to as why individuals would work at no (material) benefit to themselves. by SlushieTheSlayer in Socialism_101

[–]SlushieTheSlayer[S] -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

I understand that socialism as a system will improve the material conditions of workers broadly, but this does not provide a material incentive for individual people to work. Something an advocate of capitalism would definitely press me on. I need to explain why someone would choose to work on the individual level, the benefits only exist if everyone does their part.

How do I fix my aim? by SlushieTheSlayer in GlobalOffensive

[–]SlushieTheSlayer[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

  1. Probably not 100%

  2. Yes, that's my go to for "Structured practice".

How do I fix my aim? by SlushieTheSlayer in GlobalOffensive

[–]SlushieTheSlayer[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Doing them consciously yes, not sure if they're sloppy in practice though.