Let’s put it this way:
I believe that, as a society, we have enough resources to feed and house everyone; each person should be provided with a livable minimum that will allow them to secure a comfortable and happy existence. I believe that many jobs aren’t necessary in the grand scheme of things as well, and that ultimately food services should be automated or reworked so that people don’t have to spend huge chunks of their lives flipping burgers for the profit of fast food millionaires. If we were to actually employ some know-how as a society (possible in a society steered by democratic planning and worker/community control of industry), we could employ everyone, utilize machines to help workers with their jobs (rather than as competition for the benefit of the rich), drastically cut down the work week, and allow people to pursue whatever their interests and talents push them towards. Socialism isn’t about “the fast food worker and the surgeon making the same amount of money”. It’s about pushing society towards a state of affairs where money isn’t the plutocratic arbiter of our life choices, by decommodifying the social realm as much as possible.
Like….I want you to understand that there aren’t just some inherent castes of people who flip burgers or perform surgeries; those castes are shaped by the way capitalism stratifies people and funnels them into jobs and opportunities. In a more just society where people had more free time and qualitative access to education and resources, we’d probably see millions of people tied down to no particular job in the capitalist sense of today. “Burger flippers” would also be artists, builders, farmers, etc. Specialization would still happen, definitely, but where it does occur would likely be accompanied by social prestige and intense satisfaction for the craft – that comes with the territory when the people involved actually make the decisions (rather than submit to the decisions of bosses or property-owners). I’ve seen it argued before and I’ll reiterate it: I’d rather be entrusted to a surgeon who cares about helping people than one who’s only involved to become rich. And it’s not like surgeons and doctors will be destitute under socialism or something – they’ll be as able to self-actualize and enjoy the fruits of society as anybody else, if not moreso in some small ways (through that aforementioned prestige and respect and all that stuff).
This “you want everyone to be paid the same” argument misunderstands what socialists are aiming for; it’s too myopic and can’t help but assume socialism is just capitalism with hyper-redistributive taxation. Think outside of the box a bit, anon.
best description of socialism ive ever read tbh
Automation is something to be dreaded under capitalism because it makes precarious workers more vulnerable – but that’s because of capitalism, not because mechanisation is inherently anti-human.
So if we could have convenient food prepared by robots rather than people
(hopefully healthier than current fast food), and the people who previously did that work can instead now do work that is meaningful for them and society, then bring on the robots.
When we consider doctors, we should not do so without considering the highly undemocratic way medical knowledge and authority is controlled. There are numerous ways hierarchies of class, race, and gender play into who gets to become a doctor, compared to a nurse, compared to a nursing aide, and then within a medical setting whose opinion counts (and the nasty fights over scope of practice).
There is also the problem in my country of medical associations dictating quotas for doctors and specializations based on maintaining their privileged position in terms of money, prestige, and negotiating power with the government by limiting the number of workers rather than based on the needs of people in our society.
My idea of socialism is that it allows people to spend time on multiple skills and pursuits, and not be defined is such an overwhelming way by paid work as a fast food worker or a doctor.
If we decided what our society needed and everyone had tasks to make sure that work was done, then people would have a great deal more free time. People could do those things that bring them joy and fulfillment, as well as the tasks that society needs done which are pretty much guaranteed not to do that (like weeding flowerbeds, shoveling snow, keeping inventories).
(This would happen firstly, because many jobs today require people to be present even after all their work is done for that day or that week because limiting leisure time is a crucial part of work-discipline. If we are not trying to recreate coercive and exploitative work relationships, then people would simply complete the necessary work and be free to do something else. Secondly, free time would also increase if we used automation as this would free up people for different work. By rationally approaching tasks and jobs that currently require a great deal of overtime (I’m looking at you, surgeons), and having more people to perform them, then those jobs would also have a reasonable work-to-leisure ratio.)
Then someone could write a treatise on the native plants of their area, continue taking courses to learn how to be an architect, spend hours perfecting glass blowing, learn a new style of dance, compose their own songs, or read all the works by Martha Wells. With time and the availability of resources like teachers and practice space, people could nurture talents and stretch themselves to find just what they could accomplish, rather than having their potential curtailed by what they and their families can afford.
What would people create if they really could be anything and any number of things?
interesting how a certain type of person always references service workers as their idea of the most debased and worthless form of labor imaginable. interesting, and very revealing.
^ THAT PART
Do you believe that a person who takes orders at a fast food restaurant deserves the same income as a medical doctor?
Published
Astronaut bird 