advance. Assuming this statement is true…it really is the point of socialism. Socialism’s purpose is not to have an overabundance or surplus of goods. It is when a surplus occurs when social classes are more defined. Under socialism a lack of profit motive would ensure everyone is getting exactly what he or she needs. Now let us examine if a lack of a profit motive is bad. Let us take a steel worker under a capitalist state. Te steel worker receives zero profit from the work he puts out. The profit he works for goes directly to the owner of the plant, mill, or mine. Why, then, does the worker work? If profit is not his incentive, what is? Most people, in capitalist society, work because they have to. If they didn’t work, they couldn’t eat. It’s that simple. They work, not for profits, but for wages, in order to obtain food, clothing, and shelter. There would be the same impulse to work under socialism—people would work in order to earn a living thus disproving a lack of advancement theory…yet another reason why the working class would support socialism. Socialism offers additional incentives to work which capitalism cannot offer. Under capitalism the result of any extra effort is not public benefit but private profit. Under socialism, however, the appeal to work hard and well is based on the grounds that it is society as a whole is the one benefiting. If all industry were publicly owned wouldn’t that lead to equal pay, such being the case in a communist state? The answer is no; a skilled worker gets more than the unskilled; the manager gets more than the workman; the great musician gets more than the average musician; the farmer who produces 400 bushels of wheat gets more than the farmer who produces less; the miner who digs eight tons of coal gets more than the miner who digs six; and so on. People are paid according to the quality and quantity of their work. The pe...
