(Part of a series: The Problems Associated with a Collectivistic Society)
The second problem associated with a collectivistic society is: it fosters an environment of laziness
As insensitive as it sounds to the “Labour” party in Britain, whose proclaimed platform of being for those who work didn’t really create jobs under James Callaghan’s socialist government in the Winter of Discontent in 1978, collectivistic governments don’t place a heavy emphasis on working individuals. At least the piles of rubbish collecting on British streets while the garbage men sat on strike waiting for the government to give them a raise didn’t really seem to say “strong labouring force”. What gave those garbage men the ability to demand such unrealistic pay raises? Why couldn’t they simply work the corporate ladder to their own advantage? The answer to both is an emphasis on collectivism rather than individualism. When we think of society as consisting of groups rather than individuals, we erase the fire within individuals to strive for more. Five months after the Winter of Discontent, Britain elected their first and only female Prime Minister. At that time in the late 70’s, the status of women was not high, and collectively, they could not achieve a political position as high as prime minister, but through Margaret Thatcher’s strong drive and individualism, she won the position. So collectively, the garbage men decided that they wanted to strike to see if the government would grant their frivolous request. Even though the status of garbage men was as low as the status of women, one woman threw off the chains of her collectivism and won the highest position in the country, while the garbage men only succeeded in making the Winter of Discontent more miserable for everyone in England. Margaret Thatcher did not win the election though a labour union, she won it through the individualism of her femininity.
Shortly before Margaret’s resignation in November of 1990, a question in a Parliament session was directed toward her by the leader of the socialist opposition: “…During her years as prime minister, the gap between the richest 10% and the poorest 10% has widened substantially…Certainly that is not something that she can be proud of”. Socialists possess an undying hatred for the richest 10%, which is interesting considering the fuel for their socialist policies comes from a high taxation of this very income bracket. Why would you hate your fuel? Don’t bite the hand that feeds you. In hatred of this income bracket, the socialists are set on bringing the billionaires down to the level of the middle class- you know, misery loves company. Besides the clear unsustainability of this system, the system supports laziness. Under capitalism, capital is a direct result of labor, while under socialism; capital is a direct result of taxing the rich. Taxing the rich doesn’t require work on the end of the recipient. Thus, socialism fosters an environment of laziness. Margaret Thatcher’s response to this socialist is thrilling: “What the honorable member is saying is that he would rather the poor were poorer provided the rich were less rich! You do not create wealth and opportunity that way; you do not create a property-owning democracy that way!”
Not all socialists are lazy. Not all capitalists are hard workers. But the general environment of socialism is one that says “society will do the work” but do socialists realize that we are society? One must work if one wants money. Any revisions to this system are simply, lazy.