Socialism and Individual Sense of Obligation

 Hi Sympo I think a sense of obligation to contribute to the common good would be part of the reason why people would work but there are serveral other reasons too –  quite apart from the reasons you cite viz that work could be made enjoyable when your labour is no longer alienated labour and when the social workload would be much diminished by the elimination of all those money related occupations etc.,  There is also the question of how you acquire socal esteem and the respect of your fellows in a socialist society.   In capitalism this tends be based upon the accumulation and conspicuous consumption of material wealth.   But in a society in which wealth is freely accessible this would make no  sense.  The only way in which you can gain the respect of others is through your contribution to society , not what you take out it. At the end of the day  I dont see this as being a problem at all.  As I keep on pointing out – even today under capitalism most work is unpaid and falls completely outside of the monetised sector.   Besides, socialism requires that a majority want it and understand the implications of what they are wanting.  Surely these same people who established socialsim will understand that  if everyone  adoped the pesrpective of the lazy freerider then nothing will get produced and no one, including the free rider, will stand to gain anything from such a perspective.  So the argument  that socialism will collapse becuase nobody wil turned to do the work can be easiyl countered with a reductio ad absurdum argument bsed on what woud nappen if that tryuly gined out to be the case.  Would indiviuals complacently contemplate the prospect of mass starvation knowing full well that they cannot physically force others to labour,?  I dont think so

 Well I guess the flipant answer to that is that if society collapses becuase of people not wanting to work then those same people are sure as hell not going to be able to play tennis or write poetry  Its not rocket science to see that the one kind of activity depends on the other and people will surely see this.   After all , these same people would have elected to bring about a socialist society in the first place and so would be aware of what that implies.   As the saying goes  "Nature ahbors a vacuum" and so does society.   In socialism if you cant force people to labour as you can in a class-based society people will willy-nilly step in to do what is necessary – some admittedly sooner than others as  we all have different tolerance thresholds  – as they already do in a voluntary capacity even under capitalism.   Whats more, doing  something for the common good  (as well as one's own) would earn the praise of others and the more needed the work the stronger the praise it would presumably earn.  In a sense the simple law of supply and demand would solve the problem you refer to

 But your self-interest as an individual is bound up with the interest of others in a socialist society.  You advance your own interests by advancing theirs.   That aside, human beings are not just driven by the motive of self interest alone.  Altruism is as much a part of the human psyche as egoism  – the dual self model of the person There is also the highly questionable assumption in his argument that not working makes sense from the perspective of the self interested individual.   Does it though?  Try not working or simply doing something useful like painting your flat or weeding your vegetable patch for a long stretch of time and you will soon enough find yourself bored out of your mind .  People have been known to end their own lives because they  had lost all sense of purpose by losing the possibility of work.  And that is work tainted by capitalism!  Imagine how  different it would be under socialism  when work will be a real pleasure. To pass up on the opportunity to engage in such work would if anything be a negation of self interest to my way of thinking