To a point. If you take a reasonably intelligent individual that has a decent ethical makeup and take away the stress of meeting their life's needs, then let them be free to innovate, then they are rewarded in these ways mentioned. It seems like a good idea - let everyone contribute based on their abilities and make sure their needs are met, and everyone wins. That's what Socialism is on paper. If you take someone that is not very intelligent or does not have a good ethical makeup, this does not work and therein lies the problem. Not everyone is intelligent, not everyone has a good ethical makeup, so you end up with the problem of parasitic people. These are people that do nothing but sponge off the system. They are often referred to as "useless eaters" when dealing with social theory, and comprise not just the lazy (unwilling to contribute) but also the old an infirm (unable to contribute). In order to deal with these problems society has to be divided into a class structure based on usefulness to the whole. That means people of low intelligence get the carrot and stick approach, and people of high intelligence are put in charge and are given more freedom to do what they want. People that cannot contribute are often deemed a burden on society and cases are made for their "humane" disposal.... right to die and euthanasia often play into this. In the worst case you could end up with Aldus Huxley's Brave New World. If you've never read it, it's excellent social commentary on the fears of what industrialization could do to the world.
Now that's not to say this doesn't happen already with Capitalist societies. There's a certain degree of both going on. I often hear from the more right-wing voices that entrepreneurial opportunity is what is needed because it allows people the freedom to do what they want, lets them be self-directed, and works as a motivating factor. It is, according to them, the barriers to this that need to be removed, the barriers mainly being intimidating government regulations and complicated tax codes. The only problem I've seen with this notion is that it is assuming everyone wants to be a self-employed business person as well as doing whatever it is they're wanting to do. Not everyone is good at running a business. Some people could be technical or mathematical geniuses but not have any skill in regards to being a self-employed business entity. It places a burden of requirement in the way that can be intimidating and demotivating in its own right. So while in the case of Socialism you have the problem of the unmotivated and unable to contribute, with Capitalism you have the problem of the system holding back the best and brightest because they are not free to do what they are best at. Some very intelligent people end up just scraping by simply because they are in the wrong place or aren't good at the rat race or don't have the money to get that ever important piece of paper from a university and so their talents go to waste.
More often than not, regardless of how a society is set up, day-to-day survival and coping with stress of living trumps anything else. The mind is not free to dream and explore and create because of more pressing material concerns. As long as money and economics govern living this is going to be a problem. This video does provide a glimpse at the problem that a lot of people don't get to see, but as for a solution... well, there's just too many other problems in the way before that one can be fixed on any grand scale. For now a few companies experimenting with this is probably the best we'll see.
He is absolutely right about the disconnect between profit motive and purpose though. When greed and the "bottom line" become the primary focus and the original vision gets lost you end up with utter crap sold at premium prices and everyone loses in the long run.
|
