If you ask a far-leftist who calls himself a "socialist" what exactly "socialism" is (assuming he's somebody who's actually willing to have a conversation), he will say that socialism aims for the workers to own the company they work for and the products they produce, and to get their full share of the profits. That if a worker produces a product, that worker should own that product and get the full share of the profits from selling that product. That it's unfair that the bosses and higher-ups reap the majority of the benefits and profits, while the workers get essentially scraps.
That's not actually what "socialism" means (in socialism the workers do not own the company, the state does; what they are actually talking about is more akin to "syndicalism", not "socialism"), but anyway, let's go with that definition for the sake of argument.
Why doesn't it make sense?
Suppose that I hire you to build me a PC, for me to sell it to someone as a prebuilt system. I purchase and give you all the components you'll need to build it, and I provide you all the necessary tools and a workshop place where you can do it. I have purchased the tools, and I pay the rent of (or have purchased) the workshop. When you have built the PC and I'm happy with it, I'll pay you a compensation for your work, a salary, which we both agree on.
Assume that this goes quite well, you do a good job, and the PC sells, and it turns out that there's actually demand for such prebuilt PCs. I decide to start doing it on a regular basis, so I hire you to do more builds, and I start paying you a salary for your work (again, for an amount we both agree on).
The argument of the (so-called) "socialist" is that since you did the work, you now own that PC and thus you should get all the profits from selling it.
Why? I purchased and provided you with all the parts, tools and the place where to build it. In many countries I even provided you with health service benefits, insurance and some other benefits. On top of that, I need to run the bureaucracy of the company itself, such as filing taxes and a myriad of other things.
In other words, I spent a quite hefty sum of money for all that, and you didn't have to spend a single dime on it, nor have to do any of the logistics of it. The only thing you need to do is to do the job, and do it well, and I pay you a salary for it.
If I purchased all the parts and the tools, why would you own the PC, if you merely put the parts together, using said tools (none of which you purchased nor own)?
The "socialist" argument is, and I kid you not, "I built this PC, so therefore it's mine, and I should get all the profit from it."
Which just doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
Comments
Post a Comment