I have a question about socialism

I didn't pay attention in economics, and the wikipedia page about it is confusing.

Simple question: Does socialism reward intelligence? In a socialist society, would getting extra education provide any real benefit besides personal growth?

**Clarifying my question*** To the people who say to go to wiki answers, there is a reason why I am asking HERE and not there. I want to hear answers from the liberal/democratic perspective.

never mind

:D

we dance bare, often with wild abdomen.

aluminum. She's also brilliant at Spoonerisms - like sparking pot and dorgon owner. I adore her for many other reasons, but those are endearing. :D

Sid

I'm kinda shy that way.

Seriously, rewards for intelligence have nothing to do with political systems. Intelligent people tend to do well, whatever the system.

Once monopolies form and the society stratifies completely into a few rich people and a vast mass of suffering poor people, no one flourishes. Even the rich get grumpy because their fortunes stop increasing when there's nothing left to steal from the rest of us.

Out of context after subject line of OP was edited.

is who can answer my question?

Did you have to edit that for copyright violations, because it seemed to be very balanced and informative.

Can't even keep the link to wikianswers?

I just saw the post down below this a thought it sounded better.

Socialism does NOT say that everyone does what they're best at, at the government assigned job of their choice. People can have just about any job they're capable of under Socialism, a person simply can't control all the means of production. To get a genuine answer, just look to most of Western Europe. Do you think that intelligence is not rewarded there? Not to be offensive, but this is really a silly question.

I believe where the two differ is the amount of government involvement in the means of production.

books and make a profit on them, but I can't under communism.

with you and everyone would own the company-your idea-equally.

The difference to me seems to be quantitative rather than qualitative.

The UK isn't and never really was despite nationalisation of many industries; France isn't; Italy isn't; nor Spain, nor the Netherlands, nor even Scandinavia. Western Europe has a mixed economy which is predominantly capitalist, but it's regulated capitalism with a robust social safety net.

But Western Europe has more of it than just about any other geographical region. Most of those countries you listed have strong Socialist parties, most of them are the strongest left-leaning parties in the country. They also tend to have some mixture of socialism and capitalism. Even the U.S. is socialist to an extent. In my opinion, much of Western Europe integrates socialism to a much larger extent than we do here.

The NHS notwithstanding.

And the Labour party despite claims to a socialist heritage is as much a bastion of neoliberalism as the American Democratic party these days (Tony Blair and co. learnt all that "Third Way" bollocks from Bill Clinton and the DLC back in the mid-late '80's.)

I think it would be huge if we had anything approaching that here. I think a huge portion of our differences in perception is due to how Socialism is portrayed in the U.S.. Here, anything that is even remotely for the public good is immediately derided as Socialist. I say derided because much like the word 'liberal', 'Socialism' has been similarly demonized, to the point where most here don't have a clue what it means.

So I probably accept a pretty watered-down definition of Socialism. We have a very long way to go in this country, but I think something like a nationalized health care system would be a great start.

It is their claim that only capitalism rewards hard work and intelligence.

Socialism would reward it to, but with not as big a gap in wealth. The super duper energized entrepreneur type might find some of the limits irksome, but those same people aren't always the intelligent ones.

Would socialism reward intelligence? What do you mean by intelligence? The ability to one thing better than the other? Yes, it would.

Would "extra" education be rewarded? You mean like if you are an accountant and you take a course in music appreciation? Is that rewarded under capitalism? SOmetimes personal growth is a good reason to get "extra" education.

things to different people. So, until you define your version, an answer is impossible. I don't mean to be snarky, but that is the truth of the matter.

say focus on the Social Democracies we have in Europe, then branch out from there.

It rewards being "wily", conniving, and obscurantist (everything from advertising to O'Reilly), but not necessarily intelligent. The low pay of college professors is an excellent example of capitalism's distain for intelligence. Sure scientists are valued (especially those who manipulate the data to the public) but any socialist society would need bright people working on solutions from social energy to space travel. So long as socialism was international, and not part of a nationalist fervor with capitalism waging war against it and requiring massive military apparatuses-- in other words, so long as capitalism was as distant a concept as monarchy--then the comparable work day would be about 3 or 4 hours (the rest of our labor is surplus for capital) and we'd have time to make education a real value.

I would imagine that people would agree to compensate difficult/complex intellectual labor with material rewards. Why would that change under a socialist system? Just because we get rid of the born aristocracy, the factory owners, and the banking elite doesn't mean that "hard work" or "intelligence" won't be rewarded.

When I think of intelligence. I don't think of capitalists.

Capitalism rewards sociopathic behavior, not intelligence.

economic system, such as in Western Europe, you see that what is a "good education" means different things to different people. My sense from what I've read about Germany, for instance, is that it is harder to get into the University but educational programs in less academic subjects are geared to be productive for both the country and its people, enabling them to have a comfortable standard of living. And union membership is quite high there and is not looked down upon.

...it would be in the best interest of both The Individual and The State to have each individual educated to their best of their ability, so that they may also serve society according to the best of their ability.

Also, being educated probably gets you better jobs than being ignorant would.

And a society full of ignorant people won't invent the iPhone.

This is why Socialist countries like Cuba have free education, even for people who want to become doctors.

If you can do the work, the education is your for the asking.

:popcorn:

Doctors get paid more than trash collectors, regardless of the economic system in use.

Hopefully that can be explained. What would happen if I wanted to start a business? I don't think I'm alone in being confused. :shrug:

ranging from the Scandanavian social democratic model to Maoism to current Chinese capitalism economics and political Communism. And a boatload in between.

F.I., in MY personal model of socialism, sure you could start a business. True small businesses and owner/operators, plus worker owned co-ops would be the backbone of the economy. And it would probably be EASIER to do than under our current capitalistic system because I'd nationalize and socialize ALL of the "general welfare" types of industries. So you wouldn't have to worry about losing your health care while you got the business up and running. You would probably pay higher taxes, but you would also get more services from those higher taxes.

The only worry you MIGHT have about MY socialism (other than taxation) is if you wanted to expand interstate. You'd have to get a special licence to do that and the government could nationalize your business IF it decided it was in the general welfare of the country to do so. You would be compensated for the nationalization (licencing fees?) and would be offered a position in the new nationalized company in partnership with the government. Or you could turn it into a profit sharing co-op with you're loyal workers. Or you could go on out and start ANOTHER business. Or just retire and get another degree for your personal satisfaction. Or go fishing.

BTW, before you go all ballistic about "gubmint" ownership, remember when I say government, I actually mean the PEOPLE of the country. Not the corporations that have currently bought the levers of power and push them for their benefit.

IOW, it depends on which system of socialism you want to talk about. But MOST of them aren't going to bother a small mom and pop operation or owner/operator as long as you pay taxes and treat whatever employees you have honestly.

in some markets, so being educated and making life and death decisions means squat.

here do not seem legitimate asking for our opinion. Don't try to set us up! We are not the resource of information on a subject like that and you know it!

I had additional questions. It's not about setting anyone up.

Edited to say, I want to hear about this from the democratic perspective. If I go to wiki answers, I could end up hearing the right wing perspective.

I would say the first problem is that there is no universally agreed upon definition for what a socialist society is. If you read Edward Bellamy's "Looking Backward" it will give you one view and answer some complaints about "how can this work?" But if you read William Morris's "News from Nowhere" it gives another view that Morris wrote as an answer to Bellamy's idea which horrified him as being far too regimented.

The Democrats here are not experts in most cases, so asking that question here and taking it as the Democratic perspective is not a valid action especially if you present it as such. Also I don't think anyone here can speak in a official capacity as a Democratic Party spokesperson.

You know what is said about Democrats and that subject anyway, what does it matter what someone who calls himself a Democrat thinks.

You probably need to go to a Socialist web site and ask for theory references.

(My ideal would be a mixed Socialist/Capitalist economic system similar to what is in Sweden. You can own a business there as long as you are registered with the tax authority.)

then the state might provide more (and specialized) education, to enable you to better serve society. It's not supposed to be about you and your benefits.

Practically, however, the extra and specialized service you provide to society would probably result in you living a more-than-standard lifestyle, better housing, a nicer vehicle, vacations to better spas, etc.

Smarter kids (or at least kids who are more able in some way) are shunted to a more academic educational track, while a certain bottom percentage are shunted to different kinds of schools. The US has one of the very few educational systems in which all students are expected to meet the same high standards.

I got the same thing as you, though, from the post you were replying to; it came across as a little totalitarian; I'm just pointing out that that's already how things work in most industrialized nations. There's also another way of looking at it: instead of giving smarter people better things, one could view it as those more able are expected to do more (which is kind of the whole point of socialism, isn't it?).

(If you hadn't noticed, I'm of the opinion that for the most part the United States education system isn't broken.)

Just like with roads/fire dept/etc here in the US there would be other things, like housing/food/electric/etc that all people chip in so that there is a minimum standard of living. You can achieve more and get more, but higher taxes would make sure all shared not only the burdens but also the rewards that come from selling of natural resources/etc (ie, the people as a whole own the country and profit made by such would be spread out, kind of like oil payments in Alaska).

Simple answer, lots more questions I am sure, but that is just a basic idea. In our economy the rich can get a stranglehold on materials/labor (people are a natural resource). They can pollute the environment we all share, do what is only in their best interest, and they become the most important thing in society (that and their cash) and the people become nothing.

In socialism, workers own the means of production. So, a doctor would likely work for a cooperative or collective, a group owned by the employees of the group. Each employee's pay would be decided by the members of the cooperative/collective. Most likely such a group would see the value of education and intelligence, and would compensate accordingly.

... except for all the humans in it. Jeezus criminey...

for higher education, or if a higher education is rewarded under socialism.

As an economic system, a socialist society usually socializes it's educational opportunities (as in, pays for it) if the society at large includes education as one of it's priorities.
Most advanced societies with a high level of social-based economics reward higher education with higher positions in that person's field of expertise. Whether it's monetary, benefits, or social standing/respect, or however else the population deems that reward to be expressed.

Socialism as defined as an economic system is simply a means to equitably distribute the results of labor of a population at large to meet the needs of that society.

FYI - the largest and longest in existence working model of a socialist society in the United States is the Department of Defense.

Whether you think intelligence and education is highly regarded and rewarded in the military is now best left to your own opinion. Personally, I've seen it go both ways to the extreme (enlisted members who barely graduated high school end up with choice, well-respected medical or engineering degrees, and highly intelligent college grads who got on the wrong side of the system and got kicked out for being too "smart" for their own good...)

Haele

Socialism, like Democracy, is a big tent idea

It can be anything from employee-owned companies to a Centralized Command Economy

Stupid gets rewarded in Capitalism just as much as it did in the Soviet Bloc countries

I have two Masters degrees, got 800s on my GREs and still can't find a job, so from my perspective not really...

And is "intelligence" something that should be rewarded any more than "beauty" or "sexiness" or "athleticism" or being double-jointed or any other abstract quality that people are essentially born with?

I think most people would say no. You should be rewarded for hard work, not for a quality that you were born with.

If you want an example of socialism, watch Capitalism: A Love Story and watch for the part on the cooperative bakery in California. It's run by the workers (socialism) who all vote on important decisions and the profits are shared by everyone. If everyone works harder, there are more profits to split and hence everyone is "rewarded". If they come up with a innovative solution (they sell artisan breads in a niche market) then the company and the innovator are "rewarded" by more profits which are shared.

Another example is the Childspace daycare co-op in Philadelphia if you're interested in researching more.

help a capital holder gain more capital (maybe through intelligence) then they may be rewarded by the capital holder. However, if one of high intelligence doesn't particularly care about helping a capital holder gather more capital, there intelligence isn't "rewarded" under capitalism.

Of course one needs to discuss what is meant by "rewarded". If reward is only considered reward if it is capital, I would think the question asker is actually asking if one can still be a capitalist under a socialist system.

So silly question.

As if that were a negative...

I dream about living in a society where the scholar is free to pursue an education for personal growth. We often worry about earning "slave wages" in this country, but we rarely worry about being a slave to our wages.

socialist utopia to give every citizen a MINIMUM living wage as a dole, so that painters could paint, philosophers could philosophize, musicians could play, writers could write, etc.

And yes, OF COURSE, some TRULY lazy fuckers would take advantage of it, but so what? More people would take ADVANTAGE of it to better the lives of EVERYBODY than would ever take advantage of it for personal gain.

I think personal growth should be the main reason anyone gets an education. We have far too much emphasis on money in our society today. Colleges should not be trade schools to produce workers for corporations, they should be designed to create a more informed citizenry that is better able to serve their fellow man.

As to your question, the basic principle of socialism is "from each according to his ability, to each according to his work." In a communist society the word work is replaced by needs, but you must understand Communism is a state-less and class-less society and we are not even close to that yet. So a doctor would get rewarded more under socialism,but not as much as they are now. That is a good thing as it will help prevent those who only care about money from going into a profession that should be focused n healing and empathy.

Unless you favor shallow short-term amusements exclusively.

as it is built on and contributing toward a socialist ideal, intelligence would contribute to the greater good. As for the reward, well, that depends...do you think smart people should get more out of society than non-smart people?

to the betterment of all. The enhancement of the lives of those who live in a more socialistic society is a very healthy factor to the mental stability of the forward movement to a more perfected union. Socialism stresses a concern for the general good.We are not promoting a completely socialistic society in the US though. I think that you mean this in relation to our government.

The capitalistic faction of a society with the influence of social concerns seems to work with competition and cooperation, without the ruthless scorched earth destruction of a purely capitalistic society.

IMO, capitalism with a strong socialistic concern is the lean and the dream of our America.

What is 'natural' in a capitalist society: people will better themselves based on the risks/cost/rewards of doing so, become a conscious decision by the government in a socialist society.

You won't get many Bill Gates/Steve Jobs types in a socialist society - people who will change the world with their innovation.

many of those innovations would have got them out years earlier.

A visual interface by 1980 would have been pretty nice but we'll never know. You do have the advantage of the history but history rarely precludes other outcomes.

to each, according to their need.

What could be more human, more humane, than that?

Native intelligence won't get ya too far without education, training, work. And where does that come from but the society in which one lives?
Get off your high horse, you're preferential treatment for accidents of birth.

"...A best friend will be in the cell next to you saying, 'Damn, that was fun'."

-Groucho Marx

Just as we know now in America, getting extra education often (but not always) opens up the doors to higher paying jobs.

In many socialist economies this the same as it is in America today. However with a higher income usually (but not always) means paying higher taxes or more taxes.

As for intelligence, neither a capitalist or socialist economy rewards intelligence any more or less than the other.

They seem to be doing OK.

Please don't be confused by Communism.
Under Communism, the people don't own private property.
Everything belongs to the State.



Socialism is a whole different bird,
and can be instituted in varying degrees.
The USA has many Socialist components,
including a Progressive Income Tax.

The European Blend seems to provide the best results for the most people.

Pure Capitalism provides the best results for the top 1%.

but China has changed quite a bit from those days:
http://www.chinalawblog.com/2007/05/chinas_new_property_law_part_i_2.html

Foreign ownership of property is restrictive:
http://internationalpropertyjournal.com/blog/2010/11/16/283-china-limits-foreign-ownership-of-property.html

Aside from North Korea, name one country where citizens cant own property.

No, I do not think I am painting Communism with a broad brush.

brush.
You should go into politics.

As for why not NK, it's because I don't know enough about property rights there. I don't think you do either.

Plenty of other countries to choose from.

But China hasn't been Communist since Mao died and Den Xiaoping took over in 1976. He kept the Communist Party in tact because China has a very tenuous power structure and it could have collapsed if the party had been dissolved. But it is literally Communist in name only. Contemporary China is a right wing oligarchy.

But China is an example of a state that when it was actually Communist, private property became state property. That fluctuated back and forth a bit depending on which counterproductive five year plan Mao happened to be on at the time.

nt

They are, however, still very totalitarian, at least by Western standards. The biggest problem most of us have with China (myself included sometimes) is that the mindset is so very different between Western and Chinese cultures.

nt

they just do a better job of spreading the wealth around.

They understand what it takes to create wealth - the difference is that they also understand the need to spread that wealth around after it has been created.

You know, like we did before capitalism and feudalism.

plan! :rofl:

:D Note to anyone who wants to get on my good side come the revolution

Might as well get in on the bureaucratic graft bandwagon early, huh girl? :rofl:

:D I figured I'd get my order in.

Seriously though, I guess people just fear a world where their privilege will be taken away. Communal existence was the human way of life for thousands of years, but only 250-300 years ago we started rewarding the "intelligent" people? People with unusual talents have usually been given time and space to develop in non-capitalist society. More than now, I'd wager.

It's hard to overcome CENTURIES of capitalist/bourgeousie propaganda, but it CAN be done. Especially, when the view from your eyes doesn't match what the propaganda says. That's what's happening now.

As to the OP, I actually think that he/she was sincere. It just felt like a sincere question from someone who was looking to get some real answers. Which is why I answered it honestly above.

Truly though, I'm pretty sure that in a socialist society, you would have the opportunity to grow as a person MUCH more so than in a capitalist society. I know a LOT of people who don't need a lot of material things to live a very rich and full life. These are the people that are spending all their energy scrambling for just the basics and don't have TIME to develope personally. Under socialism, they would. And if you WANTED more of materialism (a REASONABLE amount of more anyway) I don't think even socialism would stand in your way of trying to acquire it as long as it wasn't exploitative. Even Lenin instituted the NEP to take the place of war communism in the early 20s.

Pure capitalism is dreary and literally leaves us at each other's throats until only the big dogs have everything. Pure socialism isn't quite that dystopian, but in answer to your questions, in a pure socialist state, all "profits" go to everyone.

The reality is that all economic systems come down to the dynamic of competition and rules--nothing else really. The devil is in the details. For instance, in a real capitalist society, you MUST have some level of socialism (common currency is a socialist construct). A business of any type costs the society something and the various economic models attempt to deal with how the business is charged. For instance, every manufacturer must use transportation (rail/roads/waterways) that society maintains--how much is the business expected to pay? In a sense, if they pay even a penny for every billion they make, the taxes are socialist.
Who actually "owns" the factory/business isn't really as big a factor as it gets made into when things get simplified. There really aren't many "Titans" of business in the sense of owners. Even Bill Gates doesn't own Microsoft...he owns shares. Some huge companies are employee owned (United Airlines), some businesses are government run (USPS). It is quite possible for any of these ownership models to work in any but the most "pure" version of an economic model.
The question always comes down to how much of the profit goes to the society, how much to the employees, and how much to the owner. In every model that actually works, all three areas get rewarded. Obviously, if society is favored, you have a socialist economy. If the workers are favored, you have a communistic economy. When the owners are favored, you have capitalism.
Despite what the most fierce ideologues will scream, you need all three and the balance between all three can and must flex and adjust to a variety of stimuli and across a variety of business types. Treating the creation of poetry, vaccines, and wristwatches the same way simply because you insist on economic purity will lead to success in some things and failure in others.

(shrug)

Maybe it was by accident.

other innovations are created in the US.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Ever hear of the Apollo program?

dum dum de dum...

So.... "majority", huh?

Hmmm. I wonder if Wikipedia is being entirely fair?

But the US invents the most advanced stuff.

dum dum de dum...

So... "most advanced", huh?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

so... (shrug)

other innovations are created in the US." Your ignorance is painful. News flash the U.S. is not the sole innovator in the world stage and the arrogance required to think that is more in line with Free Republic than it is here.

But we are the best.

I hate this American Exceptionalism bullshit. It just makes us all look like arrogant assholes.

I think 'American Exceptionalism', ~as we know it~, is indeed a terrible thing. It ~should~, however, always be a (never attainable) goal. This keeps us ever-moving towards the desired outcome, even though that outcome can never actually be achieved. To me, that is the foundation of progress. :)

As for the poster of this subthread, I think he/she needs to go do some research. LOTS of research. Current AE is so full of jingoistic bullshit as to be farcical.

to make themselves feel good.

The point that I was trying to make is that if people are free to dream, think and create, they will come up with some really good ideas. And socialism is an impediment to that process.

That is where me and likely many others on this board will disagree with.

nm

must be that socialism...

Dig any of them out and read them. Abysmal ignorance about the idea of socialism just leaves me with a simple reply. Sometimes it's better just to agree to disagree and not waste time with it. I'll just leave it with one question. Who's side are you on? The people or the wealthy, one are the other.

Socialism calls for state control of production and distribution; under capitalism, that power is vested in the people. Thus, I am also on the people's side.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Socialism in the north, Capitalism in the south.

They have removed all references from Socialism and Marxism from their Constitution and don't mention it all anymore. They follow Junche. Again go to my journal and read what Socialism really is, before you post on the topic of socialism.

That is by definition, a socialist state.

You may think some of the European nations are socialist, but they are not, for they permit private ownership.

In Socialism the workers themselves control the means of production. Also the state in a socialist state is supposed to be democratic. Here is a quote from Frederick Engels when he was first asked about how the new society would be organized: "Above all, it will establish a democratic constitution, and through this, the direct or indirect dominance of the proletariat."

a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

Not unexpected. Under capitalism the power of production and distribution is vested in money (capital) and the VERY few people who control that capital. Under socialism the control and production is vested in the people.

The states you keep mentioning are statist. They might CALL themselves socialist, but to be a true socialist state, if the government controls an industry, it does so in the name of the people. And if the people do NOT control the government, it's by definition NOT socialist.

We are the best at some things, right? In the right context, is it so terrible a sin to point that out?

Granted, I don't understand the concept of "patriotism" in the least. Just don't get it. I'd have a better chance at understanding Cantonese as communicated entirely through fart noises than I would at understanding patriotism. How can someone take pride in something they had nothing at all to do with?

While I would certainly never single someone out (a violation of DU's rules), there are many Americans on DU that have the self-reflection skills of a not-so-precocious eighth grader parroting his Limbaugh-listening daddy. You're dead right about that. I'm just pointing out that some people are capable of having a discussion in which nations are discussed and even ranked without it being an argument for American exceptionalism.

You can always strive to be 2nd, or 3rd or...whatever makes you feel adequate.

We are best at having a massive military, we are best at incarcerating our citizens, we are the best at imperialism, we are best at setting up a plutocracy. We are not the best at: providing for the poorest of our citizens, we are not the best at providing healthcare for our citizens, we are not the best at providing upward mobility for our citizens. I'll just be honest when it comes to the things that matter Europe is a much better than us and I wish we were like them.

One of the most recent inventions to have advanced the field medical diagnostics is the Magnetic Resonance Imaging machine and long before that the first medical X-ray made in the United States. The US has more MRI, CT, CAT, and EKG machines than any other country.

The US also leads the way in the field of medications with twelve of the top twenty pharmaceutical companies in the world.

Finally, more people from other parts of the world come to the US for medical procedures than any other country--we have the best hospitals and doctors in the world. Yes, I know, we also have some of the most expensive health care in the world, and that is a problem.

Still, your assertions regarding US health care are not accurate.

So we don't have the best, 36 countries are better than us.

But it makes me wonder why you are here.

If I thought there were 36 places that were better than this, I would relocate to one of them.

it is what the World Health Organization says, but I'm sure you think that is just anti-American propaganda don't you?

Or where it was invented...?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

For the tiniest ones, maybe you put 2 or 3 together. You could forge the entire continent, and then some, out of the US alone. So lets not pretend that 'having 12 of the top 20 medical companies' is anything other than size-related. The same for the number of advanced medical machines. We have more than any other nation? Well no shit, we're 60 times the SIZE of any other nation, we goddamn well BETTER have more!

And people who come from the other parts of the world? You left out a qualifier. 'Wealthy'. You don't see loads of poor people coming here for health care. Only those who can benefit from the 'pay for everything' paradigm.

Really...?

it is not a 'everything is free' philosophy.

"THE SOCIALIST PARTY strives to establish a radical democracy that places people's lives under their own control - a non-racist, classless, feminist socialist society... where working people own and control the means of production and distribution through democratically-controlled public agencies; where full employment is realized for everyone who wants to work; where workers have the right to form unions freely, and to strike and engage in other forms of job actions; and where the production of society is used for the benefit of all humanity, not for the private profit of a few. We believe socialism and democracy are one and indivisible. The working class is in a key and central position to fight back against the ruling capitalist class and its power. The working class is the major force worldwide that can lead the way to a socialist future - to a real radical democracy from below. The Socialist Party fights for progressive changes compatible with a socialist future. We support militant working class " http://socialistparty-usa.org/

I am a Democratic Socialist by the way.

But there is nothing in socialist theory I have seen that would prevent people from being rewarded for their work. Skilled or not.

I don't think any of your enigmatic responses have addressed that. This is a rather open ended question.
Does education equate with intelligence? I think not.
While you're at it define "education".

I'm sure that hard work in any field would be materially rewarded by any socialist society with a democratic decision-making process. A socialist society would need intelligent, critical thinkers, far more than ours because when people have to come together to control the resources and plan for contingencies, it can't be left up to "faith" in a market's "invisible hand."

http://praxeology.net/OW-SMS.htm

I'm not sure if it is Wilde, but I recently saw something written by another well-known author that basically said socialism makes us free-er. Charles Dickens? I just can't remember but it was an excellent read.

under "pure" socialism, there is no private ownership, if one wants to get very technical, there is "no" ownership...however, since there has to be some form of ownership it is generally governmental in nature. The thinking is that the government would eventually cease to exist as people moved to where they wanted to be and production and distribution wold just happen because of the familiarity of the populace.

Capitalism on the other hand is based on ownership and the pursuit of personal profit and gain. There is a school of thought that under Capitalism, there is no need for government, as labor would be purchased and the capitalist class would ensure a stable environment through work and worker pride and efficiency, doing away with the necessity of other social controls.

Neither of these, in their "pure" form is worth a damn, as the variable, the human element will not permit it, as human beings are thinking entities and both systems place far to many limitations on individualism.

Generally speaking, both Socialism and Capitalism allow for people, "breaking the mold", but in exceptional cases. What has seemed to work best is a fluid relationship between the two, with both Capitalists and Socialists believing that education is the key to success, how they go about this education has been a sore point for as long as either system has been in existence.

Socialism allows for more upward mobility, as one of it's basic tenets is public education...Capitalists on the other hand would rather "choose" who gets educated by way of their financial proclivity.

Capitalism does not reward intelligence, materially.

Anyone who made a significant contribution to a socialist society would be revered and celebrated. That is a large part of the "reward" that rich people get in a capitalist society - the expensive shit they buy is expensive mostly because of its nature as a status symbol.

After a certain point, money is only good for two things - ever increasing pissing contests, and buying political influence. We can still have pissing contests without wasting obscene amounts of resources, and nobody should have more political power than anyone else.

It also depends on the system. Socialism and Communism mean different things to different people. Some systems have "labor vouchers", basically money, for at least a period of time. Innovation could be rewarded with these in that type of society.

The idea of some kind of material reward is pointless in a late-stage socialist/communist society. You can pretty much just get whatever you want.

Exactamundo

The myth pervades American society that the richest people are just smarter than the rest of us.

In the modern usage (as opposed to Karl Marx's definitions), socialism simply ensures people will get the basics necessary for survival. (Scandinavia is pretty close to this, though not quite there.) Socialism really means understanding that markets are a tool that should be used to serve society, rather than the other way around. So yes, smart people will be rewarded for coming up with useful and innovative ideas. Actually, because there would be less economic inequality, more smart people would be rewarded. Right now, smart people only have a real chance of getting ahead if they also come from families with a certain amount of wealth, education, etc. That would change under socialism, so people would be rewarded for their abilities and hard work.

technologies, systems, and philosophies, not just things that are beneficial.

There's some high-octane irony here.

Let's turn the question around. Is libertarian capitalism a system more likely to allow informed people to exploit the ignorance of the less informed?

that your question represents what socialism is faced in this country: the legacy of Red Scares and mis-information spready about socialism/communism. It doesnt help that the only countries claiming to be communist didnt actually go the communist route, but thats a story for another day.

Ther are mixed economies in which businesses and professional advancement continue to exist and provide opportunities for material rewards.

The difference is that there is an upper limit, and obscene rewards like we have in pirate capitalism are not possible.

In socialism one doesn't strive for the betterment of one's SELF. That's a capitalist frame of reference. Rather, in socialism one strives for the betterment of the community and obtains reward from both social appreciation and a better community standard of living.

Think of many Native cultures, or on a more modern setting think of StarTrek.