According to the socialist narrative, all people are equal, so everyone is an equally useful member of society, and thus everyone should benefit equally from the goods, as long as a mysterious invisible hand does not cause inequalities. Therefore, if someone gets rich, he can only do so at the cost of harming a fellow citizen. In conclusion, if someone gets richer, someone else must become poor because of it, because everyone is the same, everyone should benefit equally from the goods, and if someone takes more, someone else gets less because of it.
This is socialist terminology in a nutshell, which leads to the theory’s first logical fiasco. Goods are not distributed, but produced. Only the produced goods can be distributed. The quantity of goods on earth is not a static quantity, but grows exponentially in direct proportion to needs. In other words, the larger a slice of the cake is taken, it does not mean that it does not lose weight, but that it increases in size.
If the number of employees in a factory is 1,000, and 100 of them generate half of the factory’s profit, then the workers cannot be equal. After all, there are more ambitious, hardworking and motivated people. Thus, their salary should be higher. Well, according to socialist terminology, they are exploiters, but I recommend an interesting statistic to everyone’s attention. Ninety percent of the world’s available goods are produced by only five percent of the earth’s population. Without them, the whole of humanity would still live at the level of the Stone Age. Without a Bill Gates, we wouldn’t have a Windows text editor, and without it, the entire apparatus of workers would be crouched down at the typewriter for twenty or thirty times as long. Without a Steve Jobs, we wouldn’t have an iPhone. I could list the examples for long pages.
I have a question. Don’t these incredibly creative geniuses deserve to get rich? One can answer that no, but if we follow the socialist terminology and take the fruits of their labor from the productive in favor of the unproductive, the world economy will collapse. It is that simple.
We have to allow work, creativity, and risk-taking to have meaning. Therefore, it is also necessary to allow some people to become “disgustingly” rich, because they are not stealing from others, but giving. Or dissuade customers from buying their products and make them rich. After all, every free market transaction in which two parties voluntarily participate is a win-win game. Everyone benefits. If someone buys a smartphone, he benefits from it in the same way as the person who sold it to him, otherwise he wouldn’t buy it. This “profit before people” is an incomprehensible slogan, because everyone in the market profits.
The myth of the exploited worker
Let’s say a factory worker earns ten dollars an hour while producing fifty for his capitalist pig boss. According to Marxism, this worker is exploited with forty dollars. But if that’s true, why is he there voluntarily and why not sell the product he made directly to the customer for fifty bucks. The answer is simply because no one would pay him fifty dollars, because without the technology provided by the company, he would not be able to manufacture the product. The capitalist pig first had to collect the money for these devices, operate them safely, that also costs money, pay contributions, taxes, and spend on advertising, fully aware of his responsibility, and maybe even pay the loan with interest, the worker pays forty dollars to use them.
The question arises, if the company should provide the workers with the technology for free, which makes them productive, why don’t the workers give up their profits? Why doesn’t the worker work for the company for free with this logic? Why should the one who has a million times more costs and risks in his own company give up his profit? wouldn’t the worker be just as exploitative if we allowed him to use all the technology for free, in which he has no cost, responsibility or risk? In fact, this worker would be a far greater exploiter than even the biggest capitalist pig.
In conclusion
A person who is a hundred times more productive, a hundred times more creative, a hundred times more useful for society, should also earn a hundred times more, not just twice or fifty times. According to socialism, this is unfair, but this is how the world works, while socialism does not at any way. They talk about a fair tax system, which taxes everyone according to their performance, and thus prevents hard-working, productive, talented people from getting rich for the benefit of the lazy masses. But how could it be fair to punish success and reward failure by invoking proportional public responsibility? Isn’t this only producing more failures?
This slogan “the rich should pay more” provokes a question in me. More??? Compared to what? Currently, ninety percent of tax revenues are paid by twenty percent of the population, sixty percent of which is paid by only two percent of the population. Should they really be paying even more than that? Despite the fact that society would do a lot of harm if the productive were forced out, since the rich would stop working, i.e. job creation, let’s think about it. Ninety percent of taxes are paid by only two percent. A thank you really wouldn’t hurt.
If someone pays more into the common fund, they should get more back from society in some form, not the same as someone who pays less tax.
Thanks for reading!