Is Socialism a good thing?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

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.

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.

[lfromnj]

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.

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?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

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.

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.

[lfromnj]

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.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

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.

[Intell]

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.

[John Dule]

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.

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.

[It’s so Joever]

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)

[John Dule]

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.

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.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

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.

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?

[John Dule]

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.

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.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

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.

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.

[John Dule]

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.

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.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

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.

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.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

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.

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.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

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.

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.

[Person Man]

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.

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.

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.

[Orwell]

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. 

[PSOL]

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.