Competition vs. Socialism

I feel that Hobbes has the mindset of someone that would support a socialist economy over a free market. For those of you who do not know what a socialist economy is here is a definition from Wikipedia: "Socialists generally aim to achieve greater equality in decision-making and economic affairs, grant workers greater control of the means of production and their workplace, and to eliminate exploitation by directing the surplus value to employees. Free access to the means of subsistence is a requisite for liberty, because it ensures that all work is voluntary and no class or individual has the power to coerce others into performing alienating work." Now why I am comparing Hobbes' views on competition and a socialistic economy is because a socialistic economy removes the threat of over production by sharing surplus wealth to everyone in the state. This may remove the need for people to compete if you take pride and dignity out of the situation.

The reason why competition would be removed because of a socialist economy is because the surplus wealth will always be shared to every citizen of the state including the unemployed making the action of working for money voluntary. If acquiring and keeping a job was voluntary this would mean that there would be a massive decrease in workers crippling the productivity of the state and in turn, is no longer able to gather a surplus profit, putting the state into bankruptcy.

Now this theory may be contradicted if we add honor and dignity back into the equation which may cause people to work to feel good about themselves. However, if we ask why however many people in this socialistic hypothetical state are still not working, we would find the answer to be laziness. Which raises the question; which is more powerful, laziness or honor and dignity? In my opinion, I believe that laziness would overcome the idea of pursuing honor and dignity because as Hobbes said, men do not work for the common good, so, men will have no reason to work when wealth is already being provided for them and they do not believe in supporting a common good.

Therefore, I believe that Hobbes’ first reason benefits men rather than being a negative attribute although it may still be an acceptable answer to the question in some cases. Secondly, with the supporting evidence put forth, I believe that laziness may be added to Hobbes’s reasons, perhaps in place of honor and pride.

What do you guys think about this subject?