I’ve observed an interesting phenomenon that I believe is the base for any economy, capitalist, communist, socialist, or else, and it might very well an intrinsic part of who we are, collectively, as a species. The division of labour has existed since ancient times, way before Homo Sapiens were roaming Earth. The division of labour exists, to a certain extent in animal communities too. There are leaders, hunters, protectors, and other roles. Naturally, as living standards increase, technology advances, and materials improve, we tend to hyperspecialise.

There is, for sure, such a thing as “too many workers”, or “too many man-hours”. This is especially prevalent in the capitalist corporate space, where people spend countless hours in unproductive video meetings or navigating corporate bureaucracy that adds little value. If those inefficiencies are ironed out, it is theoretically possible to reduce the number of employees while outputting the same exact economic value.

The opposite is also true, there can be “too little work”. This is one of the main drivers for emigration, especially when people don’t find what they like doing in their home country. There can be many reasons for this phenomenon, but it’s not a desirable situation, as in a capitalist system, idle workers represent a loss of potential.

While I consider this a serious problem, it is arguably one that capitalism addresses. That is because in a capitalist system, everything is incentivised through money. If you don’t work, you do not receive any money. And you in turn require this money to pay for your electricity, water, and food. As everything has become commoditised, those without money simply are not accounted for. Different countries have social safety nets, to varying degrees, and, for example, some countries are more or less generous with their unemployment benefits, but, as a general rule, anyone who is not contributing to society in some way, will have a negative net social contract status in which they take more than they provide.

By this, what I mean is: any person has a set of basic needs that need to be met in order to ensure their survival. Let’s use water as an example. In highly developed nations like Norway, Netherlands, Switzerland or Austria, clean, safe drinking water is all but guaranteed. And those water pipes, filtration plants, pumping stations and other infrastructure required people to build. This people in turn depend on software engineers to write the code that allows them to make plans on their computer, civil engineers planning out how to lay the pipes out, experts in sanitation setting up testing methodologies and water purity thresholds and so on, but they will also require farmers harvesting food for them to eat, car factory workers building the cars they need to get to their jobs, making every single individual highly dependent on their environment.

Communism, socialism, and social democracy differ from capitalism primarily because they provide support for individuals who cannot work or earn below a sustainable living wage, which capitalism does not.

Many capitalism proponents like to reduce capitalism down to one simple sentence: “Capitalism, savings, and hard work” [archived version]. The implication being socialists and communists are just lazy people who leech off society. This is fallacious and dismissive, and here’s an illustrative example:

• If you are born into a wealthy family, you likely enjoy a comfortable childhood with high-quality education, courtesy of your parents’ support. This privilege can lead to greater opportunities, such as starting a business with family funds or securing a prestigious job as a pilot, surgeon, or banker—opportunities typically inaccessible to those from less affluent backgrounds.
• Conversely, being born into a family with limited means often means starting work early, with education sacrificed for immediate financial needs, thus diminishing long-term earning potential.

A situation of a poor lower-class family doesn’t necessarily have to be your fault. Yes, there are children born in lower-class families that turn into business geniuses and become billionaires. And there are also stories of rich families that go bankrupt because of a mismanagement of their wealth. But it is very easy to conclude that the richer you are, the higher amount of failures you can take before you are shoved into the path of financial ruin.

Not everyone can change their own financial situation due to a variety of structural and systemic factors that advantage some while disadvantaging others. There is no universal solution that can be applied in all circumstances to lift people out of poverty or economic hardship, and capitalism is certainly no exception.

The question then becomes whether we view unemployment as a choice or a systemic issue.

The communist view

The ideas stated in the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx, considered the father of the communist revolution, revolve around a few simple principles:

• The bourgeoisie, or owners of capital, oppress and control the lower classes of society, known as the proletariat, and benefit from cheap labour.
• The means of production not being controlled by the working class means workers are essentially forced to toil away, receiving the pay the owners of these means of production decide to set, with minimal leverage.
• The relationship between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat is inherently exploitative, leading to class conflict which Marx believed would ultimately lead to the overthrow of the bourgeoisie.
• Marx advocated for the abolition of private property as it relates to the means of production, believing that this would prevent the accumulation of wealth and power in the hands of a few and distribute it more equally among the proletariat.
• The Manifesto calls for a revolution by the proletariat to overthrow the bourgeoisie and establish a communist society characterized by the absence of class distinctions, private property, and the state.
• The final goal, according to Marx, is the establishment of a classless, stateless society where the means of production are owned collectively.

The criticism this piece receives is usually to the tune of “the bourgeoisie own the means of production because they worked hard and saved to be able to afford it, so this private property should be respected, and everyone be allowed the opportunity to achieve the same”, which seems to be little more than an excuse to incentivise exploitation and employee abuse, just because that current bourgeoisie may have previously endured abuse and exploitation.

One important characteristic in the view of Karl Marx with regards to the division of labour is that he didn’t believe in the inflexible system of professional careers that we see in today’s capitalism. People would be free to explore and cultivate multiple capabilities throughout their lives. This would prioritise personal preference, but also, most likely, would make individuals more productive because they would be happier.

Important to note here is that Marx’s ideas include work as a fundamental building block of society, where the community and social relations would encourage all capable individuals to contribute without the coercive pressures found in capitalist societies.

The way I see it, Karl Marx also understands the implicit social contract as described, and even removing currency, and the figure of the State, it is easy to see how a society where not working was the norm would collapse relatively quickly. The difference lies in Marx preferring to use carrots in contrast to the capitalist stick (or sticks) of homelessness, poverty, bankruptcy and more.

The capitalist view

In capitalism, there’s no such thing as “safety nets” or “collaboration”. You work, you earn money. You don’t work, you don’t earn money. And if you do not have sufficient money to sustain your living expenses, you simply go bankrupt and get evicted. Zero consideration is given to those who are unable to work due to disability, old age, discrimination, economic recessions, and other circumstances outside of a person’s control. People who don’t want to or can’t work are often considered leeches.

This, on one hand, incentivises people to work really hard, especially those who are in poverty, so they can get out of poverty one day. On the other, it is a brutal view of the human condition. People who can’t work because they have a disability are not any less deserving of respect and care. Anyone could become disabled or severely injured from an accident or illness. This, in turn, can temporarily or permanently reduce your earnings potential. Nobody chooses to be born disabled, or to become disabled.

In practice, the capitalist approach to the division of labour inevitably leads to alienated workers, performing a job they don’t like, but are coerced into, under threat of poverty. For example, consider fast food jobs. You will rarely (if ever) see a fast food worker wanting to make it their career. The pay is not great, the conditions are terrible, and there’s basically zero room for growth. This can actually be attributed to the fact capitalism separates workers into categories, according to their education level. The best educated workers (white collar) tend to be admired and celebrated, and they earn good wages. In comparison, fast food is an industry where everything is broken down into such small, simple, repetitive steps that even someone with zero education would be able to serve hamburgers and fries: that’s why it is so cheap.

The alternative to this is to study to get to a bachelor level or higher, and then build a career in a well-paid industry like all kinds of engineering, medicine, or similar. As mentioned earlier, it is expected that a person with a high wage in a capitalist society will be a highly motivated individual who has dedicated their entire life to perfecting a very specific craft.

This touches on the question of fair compensation. Under capitalism, it is understood that “fair compensation” relates to market-driven wages, where the law of supply and demand dictate workers’ salary bands, but while this addresses problems like lack of workers, or an oversupply of them, it does not address the living wage, which often exists above what minimum-wage jobs pay.

The bottom line

As you can see, in both communism and capitalism this concept of division of labour exists.

All societies need farmers, shopkeepers, baristas, civil engineers, nurses, and train drivers. Some professions are easier than others to learn. Some professions have a very high barrier of entry (think airplane pilots or surgeons), and they also tend to be the best paid jobs.

What is interesting is how different societies, with varying degrees of socialism, communism, and capitalist features approach the problem of idle people.

In capitalism, everything is done at the service of capital. For example: You study to earn a lot of money. Nobody would study if studying lowered wages. Therefore, there’s a mechanism to ensure a strong, cohesive society where everyone collaborates towards a common goal.

But in many versions of communism and socialism, this does not seem to be a concern. It is generally accepted that there might be people who can’t (or don’t want to) work, or at least, not work in a productive, capitalist sense, and simply want to dedicate themselves to art and/or possibly other hedonistic pursuits. This may not produce tangible results in a capitalist sense. Artists don’t invent groundbreaking technologies that make our life easier, like the microwave oven or airplanes, but they are an essential part of society, often drawing attention to society’s shortcomings and defining cultural eras.

Would these people be in breach of the implicit social contract? This can also reflect at a smaller level: Would you be happy supporting a friend who never gives back throughout your entire life? Would you be happy simply giving money and/or emotional support to someone who is never there for you? It seems to me this would create a social imbalance, and even though the phrase “Give without expecting anything in return” might be idealistic and perhaps desirable, this does not seem to be the default state of people.

In conclusion

The implicit social contract underpins the collective society of humans. Labour specialisation brings us brilliant civil engineers; who build bridges and innovative traffic control systems, excellent mathematicians; who discover new ways to transmit data in more efficient ways, or Linear Algebra and Calculus which are the base of modern computers, chefs cook delicious food, plumbers ensure safe and sanitary pipework, and electricians manage cables safely.

People in any society must be specialised in different occupations, and the implicit social contract must be respected by all parties such that nobody takes more than they contribute back, and thus there’s a certain equilibrium.

This also means that studying whatever you are mentally and emotionally inclined to study might mean that you end up with a very expensive degree but no jobs are available due to a low supply of employers seeking new employees.

We have grown accustomed to studying what we want, but I find it hard to believe people really are working where they want to work, as a general rule. I don’t think job satisfaction has increased or decreased particularly over the centuries. And while, for example, it is easy to see ending slavery was the correct thing to do, to me it seems slavery still exists, but we just call it something else.

When families get evicted because they can’t pay rent. Isn’t that slavery? When your parents disown you, and you’re forced to fend for yourself for things you didn’t choose to be, such as sexual orientation. Isn’t that slavery? When you have a job, and you know your boss can fire you whenever he deems appropriate, without any consequences towards him. Isn’t that slavery?

Are we really free to choose? Or are we just doomed to, regardless of political or socioeconomic system, have a vast amount of people who are deeply unhappy about their occupation?