Talk Elections

I'm particularly curious as to whether a majority here on the Atlas support socialism and all the negative consequences that will come with it.

Socialism isn't a political platform subject to anyone's 'support'.

I suspect that most people will form a definition of Socialism so as to conform to their pre-existing conception of whether it is a good thing or not.

Obviously, the policies I tend to be most supportive of usually fall into the wide umbrella of « things that could be called socialist » and as such I tend to see the definition of socialism through that prysm and therefore as a positive thing

What is socialism?

It depends. Under my definition it definitely is.

Let me give you some words of wisdom from a historical Democratic president:


If today's Democrats heeded those words of wisdom, they would not be cowering and shriveling in the face of attacks on their policy proposals as "socialism" - they would instead be fighting back with words along the lines of "If that's what they call socialism, then we're proud to be socialists!"

For me, Socialism represents higher taxes for everyone and other things I think would be undesirable.

You're allowed to say Socialism is a good thing and have a different understanding. But under my definition, Socialism should be the last thing anyone should want outside of outright communism. Just my opinion.

like with most things....
-a little of it is fine
-a moderate amount can be fine or it can be not so fine, depends on what you want and how much you're willing to sacrifice to get it
-a lot of it is bad


you may now return to hacking at each other

You may be right. I guess a little socialism couldn't hurt. I just worry that becoming a socialist country could set the stage for us becoming outright communist.

I understand and I respect your opinion. :] I might change my opinion as well, but I see socialism as democratic socialism or the ideology of Sanders. There is also a change in culture, we are used to a socialist system. Maybe if i'd ever in America, i would have a different experience of how it works.

The ideal system is a progressive tax system with tax cuts for the working class and lower middle class and tax increases for the rich class (depending on where they stand now, because sometimes they're already good). If i would be in America, i would decrease military's expenditure and use that money to cut taxes or invest somewhere else in (health, infrastructure, education (lower tuition fees). Socialism is redistribution of wealth and the goods, and some balance is needed, and it has advantages and disadvantages, but I can understand people who say socialism is bad, and i've moderated my position recently on it.

Socialism (which, properly understood, is synonymous with Communism and was used as such by Marx, Engels etc.) abolishes money. Taxation is a capitalist financing schema; and wealth redistribution is impossible upon the abolition of wealth.

There are a lot of social democrat countries in Europe where it never set the stage for outright communism. But I understand how controversial it in America is and for what reason. Also, America is a big country, and maybe it should be left up to the states to take care of healthcare, college and all. We in the EU are not united in our views as well, and the states differ a lot from each other.

Only the very far left want to nationalize important industries....thankfully.  They are not in charge and probably never will be.  We don't want them to go away either, it's good to have people around to keep our arguments against them strong.  If they go away for generation, we may forget why it was such bad idea and try it again.  Plus it gives a place for the nutters to go.  If you take away the nutters home, they might move in with you.

My preferred economic system is fundamentally capitalistic. Now, obviously there should be some government regulations and public programs, but I wouldn't really call that "socialism".

Socialism requires that government becomes your God.

Your point is refuted with the existence of Anarchism.

Maybe in its original conception, but language is a negotatiation and words really only mean what we understand them as meaning in our communication with each other. So just as we have to accept that "will" is no longer a synonym of "want"; and that "literally" is becoming a synonym of "figuratively", we have to accept that "Socialism" has transformed from its original meaning into the ill-defined abstract term that it is now.

It is a bad thing as a word, as it has become one of the most meaningless terms in modern political discourse and leads people to talk past each other endlessly without any actual communication taking place.

And how do you propose to prevent mutually consensual contracts called  a job using anarchism?

You see, that's a trick question, because it's impossible to do anything using anarchism.

There is not one thing good about it

no it is very bad. collectivism is a plague

What's your idea of a "socialist country"? What do you mean with that? Is there any difference between a "socialist country" and a "communist country"? Do you think the USA will become a "socialist country" anytime soon?


What is "collectivism"?

collectivism is when people think you should do stuff for them just because they exist even when they haven't done anything for you.

it's all a big scam so that the "community" grows so strong it will sacrifice you for a greater good that doesn't even exist.

Marxism is neither "collectivistic" (as its libertarian critics have it), nor radically individualistic (as its conservative critics condemn it for). It rather understands this dualistic opposition as the product of bourgeois society, predicated as it is rhetorically on individualism while producing 'collectivistic' forms of organizations (corporations, nations, races, classes) to preserve this 'individuality', and all the contradictions arising therefrom ("nation of individualists" etc.). It understands that contemporary 'individualism' is a marketing scheme, as with Hot Topic shirts produced for mass sale; it understands that contemporary 'collectivism' serves to defend its opposite, as with the institutions of the Church and their obsequience to capitalism.


- The German Ideology, Chapter III, "The New Testament: Ego"

No, I ultimately believe that the social market system is best for us, at least for now. It does incorporate some "socialist" elements of regulations and welfare, which in these doses, as Dead0man said, are beneficial and necessary. Of course socialism is such a broad term that it can't really be defined in one way and thus can change some opinions. But if we consider socialism to be the hard/non-market form of government planning and ownership of resources and whatnot, it is obviously flawed as seen by previous examples. The system makes corruption much too easy when resources are in the hands of so few. Capitalism spreads resources across a greater number of people and organizations, and while unlimited capitalism can result in centralization as well, social market policies have been most effective in preventing corruption than either extreme. To whoever argues that money would be abolished, without debating the logistics of resource distribution without it abolishing money is unfeasible without a united Earth as international transactions would become impossible and self-sufficiency is simply not possible in this era.

Yes, as capitalism tends to put profit above the interests of the community. It's not so much a question of government control, just that the profit-based private sector just works for those with money and doesn't allow for what's good for society and those without much money.

I would not like to make stuff for people in exchange for nothing. I believe in reciprocity and fair trade. I mean, why should I sacrifice myself for the "community" if I get nothing in return? The fact is that we are not isolated individuals, but social beings that interact with each other. Leaving aside Robinson Crusoe, most of us depend on interaction and exchange to survive. The framework within we carry out our activities is called "society". While many members of the human society are protective of their individuality and prerogatives, it is a common belief that solidarity is necessary for the good functioning of the social apparatus.

Yes.


I love that moment early in 1984 where Winston's letter "to the future or to the past" unselfconsciously refutes the "individualism"/"collectivism" false choice in less than half a sentence. "To the future or to the past, to a time when thought is free, when men are different from one another and do not live alone"...! (emphasis mine)

For me it is.

In theory, yes. In reality, no.

     Anarchism is a meme position, and can effectively be disregarded. Ultimately, Santander is right. The socialist economy does require the government to be able to reckon what is good, and to divide among the people as it sees fit. Those who are losers under its paradigm possess no recourse. That this notion can be sold to people as a vision of freedom is an impressive sleight of hand.

Government, at least in theory, works for the people. Capitalism simply only works for private profits.

Private, meaning people.

Profits are a more effective motivator of interaction, exchange, and work than mere feelings of "solidarity."

This is my biggest problem with capitalism. The division of labor makes us narrow-minded and ignorant of the wealth of knowledge in the rest of the world, and we end up producing whatever the mass public thinks is best. People become dumb as a result. I would much rather live in a shack in the woods; I'm just afraid I'd get mud underneath my fingernails or something awful like that.

Depends on how you define "socialism".

For some, Obamacare is socialism. For others, the Kim regime in North Korea is socialism. The former is good (albeit still not enough "socialism" IMO), the latter is obviously bad.

The dichotomy between individualism and collectivism is an illusion, a consequence of the obscurantism of the capitalist mode of production (what we call commodity fetishism - the disappearance of social relations behind the commodities produced by them). In the name of 'private interest', individuals are compelled by market forces to regiment their lives - to wake up at the same time, to travel to the same places, to do the same jobs with comparably skilled workers. Capitalism in this sense is far more 'collectivistic' than previous modes of production, which held out the possibility of existing outside the system. Collective production structures the very essence of the individual's existence to a vastly greater degree under capitalism than under any previously prevailing system, and does so increasingly to precisely the extent to which capitalist 'individualism' (and with it lifestyle materialism and the labor necessary to support it) predominates. The corporation is the ultimate expression of the collective principle.

Again, per Marx:


Capitalist 'individualism' produces capitalist 'collectivism' by compelling individuals to labor at comparable positions and maintain compatible lifestyles. This is called 'ordered liberty' by bourgeois ideologues.

I say no, by Marxist definition Socialism is state control of the economy, which is objectively bad. It grants total power to a "guiding hand" revolutionary, which too often becomes an iron fisted despot before the transionary period is over.

When Dems finally enact campaign finance reform, immigration reform and DC statehood,  that were blocked due to Reid protection of filibuster.  Dems arent gonna repeat that twice and will go by simple majority.

Socialism is about a reform agenda, not just about health issues

The thing is most people support mixed economies. After all, even Lenin introduced the NEP which amounted to proto-Dengism and most "free market" leaders like Reagan and Thatcher used the power of state planning when they needed. If you look at most countries that have rapidly grown or reduced poverty levels, you'll see similar patterns: the Asian Tigers are all good examples of polities that used the free market and statist methods in tandem t enormous success, as was France under dirigisme and the American School/National System.

In general, I think that wealth and the means of generating wealth should be distributed amongst the population. I will leave it at that, but to note that many of the dreams of neoliberalism's early days was to achieve something similar - creating a "nation of shareholders" for instance.

Socialism isn't a coherent "thing", so dumb question.

No, meaning individuals.

The word meaning people is "public".

In theory maybe.

In terms of what socialist voters want it's awful IMO.  If you don't agree with socialism and try to debate someone who says housing, health care, and food are human rights that society needs to provide it doesn't go well.  I don't believe that the rest of society should have pay for someone elses healthcare or food or housing because that doesn't just fall from the sky, somebody ultimately has to work to make that happen.  And some of the other things like paying off student loans, which Warren proposes are also completely unfair.  So the person who just worked hard for 5 or 10 years to pay off $200,000 in student loans has to see everyone else get theirs paid off?  At the same time, I don't think big businesses should be bailed out either. 

Individuals are people tho

No. Has it worked anywhere?

Socialism means pro growth and consumer laws being protected, capitalist means trickled down economics and making rich people happy.

*citation needed*

The problem with these kinds of questions/discussions is that you need to define what you mean by "socialism" to begin with. Socialism is a tricky term because not even self-proclaimed socialists necessarily agree on what it means. It's a theory of an economical system, it's a political movement, it's an ideology, & it's not clearly & definitively separated from terms like "social democracy," "social liberalism," or even "communism." What all these terms share are a critique of capitalism & a lack of belief in the market as the solution to problems in society, but "socialism" is still such an incredibly varied field of philosophy/economics that it has run the gamut from terrifying, one-party, genocidal dictatorships to parliamentary republics that have created the most prosperous societies on Earth.

I mean socialism as in the type that's close to communism.

Government nationalization of industry isn't usually a good thing, though there are industries like water supply which work better as public utilities.

Things like social security and government funded health care are good, but they also are not "socialist." Welfare state programs are not socialist by definition because socialism is state takeover of industry.

Basically this. A liberal democracy with a robust social safety net isn't socialism. Progressive taxation isn't socialism so long as it respects people's individual rights.

Authoritarian socialism is always bad.

That's not what the word means to anyone who isn't 1. An othodox Marxist or 2. Someone who's trying to discredit the concept. Marxists don't have a monopoly on the concept of socialism, they never did to begin with, and they especially don't now. And opponents of socialism don't get to make a strawman out of it.

The only reasonable definition of socialism isn't as a specific set of policies but as a set of values and ideals. And the welfare state has just as good a claim at fulfilling these values as state ownership of industry.

What does socialism mean?  It seems to mean something very different to everyone I talk to, and from country to country.  I voted bad thing, but at the end of the day, its the results that matter.  Is it making peoples' lives better or worse?  It seems to work well in some European countries.  But then many would say that isn't real socialism.

So, then the question that you obviously should've asked was "Is Communism a good thing?" Gotcha.

The fundamentals of communism ("from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs") can work in small, closed groups in which everybody is on the same page & is willing to dive into the process. The problem with communism is that it requires people to ignore certain innate human desires, such as greed, power, &, on the opposite side of the spectrum, laziness.

Now, it's certainly possible to find, say, 30 or so people that are all willing to forego greediness & a search for power & work together on a community-owned commune. But the system breaks down quickly when one or more people stop putting in the work required of their ability, or even if there's a perception by the other community members that someone isn't putting in their work. Resentment will grow &, taken far enough, break down the goodwill, & the community will disband. This was common with a number of American communes in the '60s & '70s. They'd last for some number of years & then they'd fall apart.

So, on a small scale, communism can work. Most families are small-scale "communist" enterprises, for example, in which you (typically) forego greed & recognition of your individual efforts for the benefit of the group. On a large scale, though, it's simply impossible to expect a society to have all members forego so many basic human instincts in order to prevent the breakdown, so the system must be enforced with an iron fist. But how can you enforce something without power? So now you have, at least, a 2-tiered system: the enforcers & their subjects. Now, no enforcer wants to become a subject, so the methods of enforcement, in time, become more about clinging to power rather than making decisions that are good for the people as a whole. This is why, historically, in practice, communist societies cause societal famine, mass killings, & a halt to innovation.

Workplace democracy is morally right, and anyone who disagrees is a bootlicker.

Yeah, instead of licking the boot of your employer, you should lick the boot of majority opinion instead.

It isn’t the current majority’s fault that you exhibit such awfulness to be excluded. Try making a convincing case for yourself instead of licking the boots of the current GM.

What are you talking about? I'm just arguing against the claim that democracy is a bootlicking-free system of self-governance.

Instead of licking the boot of my employer, I should respect the decisions of a fair and democratic body that I am a party to???? How is this a tough decision lmao

These two words are directly contradictory.

That depends on how you're defining "fair." Some people would constrain fair to an action that harms no one unjustly (don't even get started on the definition of "just;" let's just assume that it harms nobody that didn't commit a crime for now). Therefore, the only truly "fair" rule would be unanimous agreement among the population as a whole, where they debate the pros & cons until everybody feels that a given decision taken is for the best.

Too bad that's impossible.

So there is no such thing as a fair election? Ever? They're just shams? Jeez sounds a tad authoritarian for yellow avi.

I'm sorry, we must not have met before.

The New Republic is glad Neoliberalisme collapsed.

https://newrepublic.com/article/155970/collapse-neoliberalism (https://newrepublic.com/article/155970/collapse-neoliberalism)

Now, what should be the credinble alternative ?

It's a Leninist idea, not an Orthodox Marxist. But all RL attempts at creating Communist societies are based on Lenin's (heretical) interpretation of Marx, so we don't really know how Orthodox Marxists would have tried to organize the Socialist stage (e.g. Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxembourg if the Spartacist uprising somehow had succeeded).

Marx viewed a Socialist society as the last stage before the Communist society with genuine common ownership of the means of production and such a high level of material abundance that the concept of property would essentially be meaningless (basically utopia, he imagined full automatization implemented during the Socialist stage would solve almost all scarcity issues). He talks about social ownership of the means of production in the Socialist stage, which can be organized by other means than the state. He was fairly vague about how social ownership should be organized and more focused on how advancing productive technology would lead society towards Communism. In principle social ownership can be organized by employee ownership, coops, citizen ownership of equity (not that Marx would have condoned that..) or common ownership by a mass organization or local community. Marx wasn't exactly a big fan of the state and its use of a state controlled command economy as the main instrument to create a Socialist society is the reason many Orthodox Marxists view the Soviet model as "state capitalism".

The author there rightfully criticises Labour for expunging any thought favourable to neoliberalism in the last years, thereby sowing divisions and weakening the party. But then he also notes how it should continue tirelessly defending the EU, when that strategy already cost them many seats. So it's clear where his sympathies lie, and it's not in making sure Labour can win another election.

SOCIAL SECURITY disarms the homeless,  should people cant find work. Student Loan forgiveness, will allow students who cant afford to pay, to rid themselves of debt, like bankruptcy.  A second chance. But, medicare expansion, is a double dip program for medicaid expansion. that's not needed.

You don't know what socialism is.

I personally can't wait for a post-scarcity society so we can stop arguing over how best to structure the distribution of socioeconmic benefits.

We already live in a post-scarcity society. And yet the wealthy are still hoarding all the fruits of it.

But if we were really living in a post-scarcity society, then wouldn't hoarding it no longer matter? As in they could hoard it and the rest of us could just get more? The fact that we can't seems to imply we're not post-scarcity.

Well, we're a post-scarcity society in the sense that we currently produce more than enough resources to provide every single person alive today with a good and fulfilling life. I guess we're not a post-scarcity society in the sense of having infinite resources, but if that's how you define it then obviously we will never be.

No. Sanders is not real socialist. Real socialism means either poverty or death camps.

You're thinking National Socialism.

Post-scarcity is a myth.  Economics 101 tell us that the scope of human want is truly boundless. 

Absolutely not. We aren’t at the stage to reap the galaxy to our own whim, and our ability to exploit this world has its limits.

No.

Thinking of all the histprical examples like USSR, Cuba, Venezuela etc. it's a clear no for me

If we reoriented our economy to distribute those resources based on need, we would no longer be producing enough resources to provide for all of those people due to the changed incentives.

Yeah, I'm sure the incentive to become a decadent plutocrat hoarding more money than one could spend in 100 lifetimes (as opposed to the incentive of attaining an existence that provides ample material comfort, which is still present under socialism) is absolutely indispensable to keeping everything running. ::)

The incentive to work hard is a product of the fact that our lives depend on our ability to generate wealth for ourselves. If our lives do not depend on our ability to work, we will not work as hard.

This is an incredibly silly and easily debunkable point for a number of reasons (the funniest one being the fact that capitalism does in fact create a class of parasitic rentiers who live in luxury without need to do much of any work), but I don't see why I would bother given that you're presenting no evidence for it whatsoever. Of course, there are in fact thousands of examples, big and small, of people who achieved great things with no benefit to their livelihoods (in fact often at the expense of their livelihoods). As you would know if you were interested in real human psychology and not the deranged abstraction that is homo oeconomicus.

If we set aside the socialism/capitalism debate and take this bolded statement as a given, then you've actually agreed with me. I said that if your life does not depend on your ability to work, you will not work as hard. You just gave what seems to be a fine example of that. Far from debunking what I just said, you confirmed it.

Only a socialist could laugh at the idea of economic psychology. Economics is the study of how individuals make choices, nothing more. In my experience, people who seek to demean that field either have a deep-seated fear of choice or a deep-seated fear of individualism. Usually both.

My claim was that people work their hardest when their life depends on it. You didn't refute that; you gave an example that bolsters this claim, albeit one that occurs in a market system. If you really need a proof of this common-sense aspect of human nature, look no further than the communist systems of the 20th century, which tried (and failed) to find an ample motivation for their workers to replace self-interest-- nationalism, cults of personality, quotas, communitarianism, bureaucratic advancement, and pure terror were all tried, and all of the resulting systems were abject failures.

Confirmed what, that there are people who don't need to work for a living and don't work as a result? No duh. That's not what you claimed: you claimed that needing to work for a living was necessary to work hard, and that's obviously false. There were plenty of rentiers throughout history who had no need to work for a living but did in fact work tirelessly to give us some of the greatest contributions in art and science alike. That doesn't justify the immorality of rent as a human institution, of course, but it does invalidate your point.

What if I told you that human productivity is highest when people are secure in the basic comforts of life but otherwise not pathologically obsessed with accumulating more and more wealth on top of it, because that allows them to pursue an occupation they actually enjoy rather just something they have to put up with to survive? I don't have evidence for it, obviously, but neither do you. That's why these arguments centered around muh human nature are so inane.



"Economic psychology" is demonstrably bullsh*t. The entire body of findings from the entire field of psychology (you know, actual psychology) exists to demonstrate that people aren't hyper-rational utility-maximizing robots. Even you probably aren't one, as much as you might try to act like it. If you're seriously trying to argue otherwise, I'm not going to waste my time with you, because you're obviously delusional.




Of all the reason why Soviet-style planned economies (which, no, were not really communism, but that's an utterly uninteresting conversation to have) were an abject failure, I don't think there's much evidence that the problem was individual workers not working hard enough. I could be wrong, but iirc the issues that are generally cited are usually more structural in nature, having to do with the specific planning decisions that were made.

Either way though, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that people didn't work particularly hard, given that their labor was arguably even more alienated than in the capitalist countries at the same point in time. Alienated labor is by nature something people strive to do as little as possible of. If that's all you're claiming, then I guess we agree. It's just that my solution to that problem is to reduce labor alienation, while yours is to force people to work at gunpoint.

Socialism for who, is the question.

The entire people once society is reorganized to be a full democracy run by those liberated from the wage system, and those forced out of such system as well, by the current dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.

Socialism has never been successful. Capitalism/mixed economies are responsible for much more of the world's economic development. And no, Denmark and Sweden are not socialist. Surprised Atlas was this far left economically.

Scandinavia isn't real socialism, but we can't implement similar economic policies... because that'd be socialism.

It goes to show how out of touch this forum is with the real world. lol

No. Socialism is by nature either centralized planning or anarchistic. Neither is a good idea.

It's never good to go too far to the left or too far to the right. What we have in America is a compromise between pure capitalism and pure socialism. The fact that we have a compromise between the two extremes is perpetually complained about by the extremes -- I constantly hear complaints by the far right that socialism has been gradually creeping in to our governmental system and we have to put a stop to it before it gets any more socialized. And then there's Bernie and his bros, who always lament how much capitlaism we still have and that's somehow not a good thing.

So long as I continue hearing both extreme sides complaining how the American system is, right now, I know that we still have a compromise worked out, which satisfies me.

So what does that compromise look like? Social Democracy? State Capitalism?

If people here are in support of social democracy or whatever it's called then that is reasonable. I don't like throwing around the term "socialism" so loosely.

I don't know of a word to describe it, but it certainly has the capitalistic structure of freedom to earn billions of dollars, businesses are owned privately, but there are many elements of socialism -- Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare, minimum wage, other worker protections, consumer protection laws, and so on. Capitalism with a welfare state; they coexist as a compromise, but there is no term for it.

The term you are looking for is called Social Democracy.

Quite the contrary, I think there's plenty of evidence for both interpretations. Let's use a hypothetical example.

Let's say that we gave someone a relatively difficult math problem and told them that if they failed to complete it, they would be killed. Now, I believe that humans work harder when they have a lot to lose, which is probably true in this case-- the person would probably work very hard to find the correct answer, checking and double-checking his work hundreds of times before submitting his answer. You would argue that because he is so worried for his own life and panicked over getting the wrong answer, his cognitive functions would not be at their optimal level, and so he would be more likely to get the answer wrong. This is also probably true in this case. Both factors play off of one another and it's hard to say which one would win in the end.

Obviously this thought experiment is not "admissible evidence," but the two conclusions are self-evident, and I think it is fairly clear that both interpretations are valid. Now, the good thing about capitalism is that it almost never places that level of importance (someone's life) on such a small thing. That man's salary, bonus, potential promotion, or raise might all depend upon his ability to solve that math problem, but he is at least secure in the knowledge that his life will not end just because he failed at one simple task (which is what happened to quite a few people in communist regimes). So I would argue that capitalism provides both the necessary incentive and the necessary level of security for the man's ability to work and cognitive strength to both function well.


I never made any such claim, and you are putting words in my mouth. Economic psychology does not explain every single human action, but it has tremendous explanatory power. It does not need to provide a grand unifying theory for all human behavior in order for it to be valid.


The planning decisions were made by people who did not have a profit motive, which means that those enacting the plans also didn't work hard enough to develop workable solutions.


This is something that has basically been endemic to authoritarian/communist regimes, lol. Despite my earlier thought experiment, no libertarian has ever advocated for forcing someone to work. The only thing that forces a person to work is their own bodily functions and necessities.

Depending on how one defines "socialism", yes, but I prefer social democracy or distributism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism).  But any economic system is only as strong as its worst-off, be that capitalism, communism, socialism, or anything else.

By that principle, if we must have capitalism, then it should only be because all of the alternative systems fail the worst-off, which I don't believe is necessarily the case.  It should never be looked towards as a moral exemplar.  And while the state must have a role in any 'functioning' economy, no type of economy, planned or unplanned, will work if the people forego charity and empathy for hedonistic consumerism.  Inequality is ultimately a cultural and moral failing of society.

Also, this idea that socialists are 'against work' is a huge strawman.  Socialism is about owning the fruits of your own labor, rather than selling it to someone else.

If you think your boss is entitled to what you create because he gave you the tools and raw materials, then why is he not also entitled to your wife because he gave you the job you use to support her?  We have a word for people like that.  It starts with C, and it's not 'capitalist'.

This is blatantly false as I have asked every socialist what we should do with non workers and they always give the answer of feed them its the humane option despite the fact feeding non workers would require stealing from workers.

And the 2nd question is simply because its not part of the mutually consensual agreement?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_each_according_to_his_contribution

Still, while letting people die for sloth might be the rational choice, I don't regard it as the moral one.  This is the main dilemma of whether we value material goods over human life.

Then is it moral to steal from worker a to feed non worker B?
Im arguing this in a purely communist society too(which will never happen)

What if Worker A refuses to give up his fruit?

Then Worker A suffers the moral and practical consequences of disregarding the community he serves, which in turn serves him.  The same can be said of the able-bodied worker who acts in a similar manner, but death is obviously the more severe penalty.

So I think its clear communism isn't about keeping the fruits of your labor, when it comes to any realistic scenario for most communists.

Neither is capitalism.  But I'm not making an argument for either.

I care about the eventual goals and aspirations of economics socialism, I suppose. A guaranteed welfare state that provides a minimum need to all. I also support workers owning a stake in the industry they work in. I don't support getting rid of the market or capitalism though.

()

No, but the use of the word “socialism” is abused in the US to the point it doesn’t have any meaning. If Republicans keep calling everything the Democrats do as “socialist” eventually people will be more likely to embrace actual socialism (Kind of like a boy who cries wolf scenario)

Also, if you own something then that means you have the exclusive right to trade with it and sell it. If someone is preventing you from selling your labor, that means you don't own your labor. Seems pretty straightforward.

So if I work at Apple, I earn all the profit for what I produce?

Please do not tell me you actually believe in Marx's surplus value.

Surplus value really has no bearing on my economic views and Marx was quite poor at explaining it anyway, but a capitalist system does not actually allow you to own the proceeds from what you produce better than a democratic or guild system.

Elaborate on this. I cannot fathom why someone should be considered "more free" in a system where they are not allowed to exchange their labor for something.

You would be allowed to exchange your labor in a mutual system the same way you are in a capitalist one.  The difference is that you are able to earn a living by relying on your own property, instead of the property owned by a handful of wealthy individuals and corporations.  A farmer or a plumber who owns their own tools is also likely to commit more to their work.

The problem with capitalism is that it produces too few capitalists, not too many.  Guild systems were used for many years during the Middle Ages.  And guess what: you are better dressed, better fed, and better educated than all of the people who lived in that time.  But you don't own anything.  And under state capitalism (or state communism!), you're not going to own anything.

I'm not sure socialism is the right word for this. It sounds more like the distributism advocated by many C19-C20 Catholic economic thinkers.

Personally, I'm not really interested in the question of ownership, or why surplus value allegedly is or isn't a bullsh**t concept; I just think it's immoral on a society-wide level not to use resources to adequately feed and house as many people as possible when such resources manifestly exist.

Distributism is exactly what I'm advocating here.  I think that too many of Marx's theories have been proven wrong to justify rebuilding society on them.  When you remove the politically dictatorial elements that are a feature to communist states, capitalism and communism are not meaningfully different.  There has never in history been a classless, stateless society like Marx envisioned and there never will be.  The small communal society of the first Christians as described in the Book of Acts comes closest, but it is difficult if not impossible to implement that on a wide scale.

I think a lot of people think that way. They don't care how these sort of problems came to be or how they are solved. The only thing they think about is that there is a problem that shouldn't existed, yet it does, and they don't want it to be a problem any more.

Socialism is not really an ideology anyone wants to be apart of. I don't understand why someone would want to be a Socialist, of course, if you support Socialism as the stepping stone to Communism that makes more sense, but just being purely a Socialist is weird. Generally, though the abolition of currency, class, and the hierarchy is something I can get behind in a post-scarcity society. 

Some people don’t want to buy into the nihilism that life is a rat race, that there is no other option but to eat the other dog, that Capitalism is eternal and inescapable human condition. It’s obviously more detailed then that, but that’s the jist of it.

Your comment is asking why would anyone be a Capitalist in 13^th century Europe anyway, where the Church, the Fiefdom, and the King reigned supreme. Slowly and steadily, it was proved to not be eternal.