[k.y]

I have to write an essay about conservatism, liberalism, and socialism, and I'm really stuck..
So, the question: As a worker, which of the three perspectives (conservatism, liberalism, or socialism) would best fulfill your interest and needs (if society were to be organized along its principles)? Which perspective would you guys go with?
Thanks!

[kOoHII]

socialism because you get the same amount of pay and ownership as doctors (despite your lower education and lower skilled work). if you look at labor organizations...most indeed advocate socialism. they want the government to equalize pay and benefits through social programs.


i'm looking at this from an econ. pov however (even though you asked for polisci...the two are tightly correlated). i'm assuming workers mean factory workers (not stock brokers)

[itrayya]

great questions!!
i get so excited!!!! when it comes to politics!!!

as a worker... you would want equality, equal pay, equal rest, etc.

socialism is more about distribution of wealth, etc.

BUT, in a world that we live in today, we would want as much
as we can make, meaning if i have a better education and you dont,
heck yah imma want more pay than you. you know?

me... since im kinda liberal... liberalism.

kOoHII, that's a good way to view it!!!
im glad to see a view outside a political one.
thanks.

good luck k.y!!!!

[marrymehyori]

That's a stupid question because it assumes all workers have identical interests. Workers who care about security will probably prefer socialism, those who care about freedom will want conservatism, those who want a mix will prefer liberalism. Of course, in saying that I'm making some extremely loaded assumptions about what defines each movement. First you need to define, or have definitions provided, of what each of these philosophies means, because what they mean today is absolutely unrelated to what they meant when the terms were first invented. And even today, different people have different understandings of what they mean - ask a self-proclaimed liberal to define liberalism, then ask a self-proclaimed conservative to define it. You'll probably get two extremely different definitions...

[marrymehyori]

socialism because you get the same amount of pay and ownership as doctors (despite your lower education and lower skilled work). if you look at labor organizations...most indeed advocate socialism. they want the government to equalize pay and benefits through social programs.

i'm looking at this from an econ. pov however (even though you asked for polisci...the two are tightly correlated). i'm assuming workers mean factory workers (not stock brokers)

That last sentence is key - a "worker" getting paid the same as the doctor, assuming the doctor is not a worker (and that's not a very good assumption, but probably is what the teacher is looking for), may be great for the worker in terms of getting more pay, but it disincentizes the doctors, so fewer people will want to become doctors, and those who do will not care as much about the quality of their work, so when the worker gets sick, he is less likely to get adequate treatment, and that actually hurts the worker.  So equalizing pay really turns out to not be such a great idea.

Plus, such pay equalization reduces incentive even amongst the workers to be more productive.  If everybody gets paid the same, why work as hard as you can to deliver the maximum amount of the highest quality work you can produce?  You'll get no addition reward for it, so instead all workers will seek to deliver the absolute minimum they can without getting in trouble.  It's actually the worst case scenario for EVERYBODY.

Socialism may sound good on paper, but it absolutely must fail in practice.  It's like after the Berlin Wall fell, you'd hear an the explanation of communism from the Polish workers: "We pretended to work and the government pretended to pay us."  That's what socialism results in, every single time.  It actually completely disincentizes the workers to actually work.  Socialism is not a good scenario for anybody in society, no matter which social group you belong to.

[Kang1004]

Hum You should simply first narrow down your subject. What kind of worker? When? What is the current political situation?
When these questions are answered it usually get easier to answer. Then you could look primary or secon. sources to know what each of them mean for the worker you chose and depending on the time and the current political situation one will obviously be better than another one for 2 or 3 reasons.
Well sounds easy like that but I'm probably taking a historical perspective and maybe it is not what the teacher wants lol

[marrymehyori]

Hum You should simply first narrow down your subject. What kind of worker? When? What is the current political situation?
When these questions are answered it usually get easier to answer. Then you could look primary or secon. sources to know what each of them mean for the worker you chose and depending on the time and the current political situation one will obviously be better than another one for 2 or 3 reasons.
Well sounds easy like that but I'm probably taking a historical perspective and maybe it is not what the teacher wants lol

All the points you raise are very good, and the purpose of the exercise may very well be to demonstrate the complexity of the topic.  But then it's also possible the professor may just be a Marxist (there's a lot of those in academia) basically expecting the socialist answer to be the right one no matter what

I'd write up an answer that addresses the complexity of the issues involved in trying to arrive at an answer, without necessarily picking any one of the three as the "best".

[Godotology]

I personally have a problem of how the term liberals and conservatives are thrown around these days. Almost anything thats Republican is labeled as conservative, which include neoconservatives, paleos, libertarians, etc even though some of them can have some very different ideas on economy, especially with neo-conservatives who are sympathetic to bigger government, libertarians who want much smaller government and free trade, and paleos wanting to adopt more protectionist trading policies. Other countries also have different perceptions of what liberal and conservative is.

in any case lets look at some real life examples.

China during Mao's era adopted far more socialistic policies than China of today. Some would argue that Mao's China was much more socialistic than the USSR as Khrushchev adopted differing policies (which were a factor in the Sino-Soviet split). It was during this time that nearly anyone, no matter how stupid or incapable he/she was, they had always had a job to do, even if it was very mundane. In general they were employed for life.

Since then, China has adopted an open market policies and started doing away with several elements of its socialist economy. What happened was, these factories that employed such people, found itself being uncompetitive with foreign competition and very obsolete. They couldn't afford to just pay anyone for any kind of job and many of such factories ended up shutting down. However it was also during this time that people who are talented in whatever they do, being able to become far richer than had they stayed in the previous system.

There's a few Russians studying in Japan here and I've asked them about their parents experiences during the USSR and after. some said their parents felt more secure in the USSR era, others said their family was able to become richer after the USSR broke up.

now, outside of these socialist examples, you have countries that have socialistic elements such as say Scandinavia. Here in Japan, many jobs actually have the same pay scale regardless of difficulty or education. I'm just throwing random examples here, but say a train operator, desk clerk and cop would make the same pay, even though one would require more certification and training and the other is more hazardous than the rest. some may argue that its fair because the pay is the same.. others may argue that its unfair as the amount of effort/training/and risks are different.

You also have to consider the role of Unions too. in many parts of Europe they are quite strong and have the power to totally disable certain industries.. for example the multiple train strikes that have hit France and Germany last year. Some employers may find unions as being very troublesome for their operations. On the opposite end of the spectrum, if there were no unions, companies could overwork their workers, take away benefits at a whim, etc.

[kOoHII]

let me clarify my answer. if workers had the interest of u.s. welfare in mind, they'd go with neoclassical liberalism which would be classified under political conservative ideology (at least in the u.s.). however...we know from history that they are selfish and often want above market wage. if htey follow historical patterns...they'd go with socialism (which is better for workers but a failure for the general economy).

again...you have to clarify workers...i'm using Marx's definition (i.e. workers = factory workers and not doctors, factory managers, etc.)


marrymehyori: i'm personally against socialism but workers have in the past advocated interests that are against the interest of the general welfare of the country...hence my answer