orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (01/25/85)
> How can you believe that Socialism is better than Capitalism? Socialism > places the group as the standard of value. The consequence of this that > all Socialists blank-out is that it turns productive individuals into > animals to be sacrificed for the group by the whims of any non-producers > holding political power. All is just if it is in the name of "the > people", "the society", or "the common good". That is the creed of > Socialism. Those who are better and more productive are to be penalized > because of their ability. The products of their work are confiscated > and consumed by non-productive capitalism-hating looters. From each > according to his ability to each according to his need is the equation > that has time after time brought the productive industrial capacity of > nations to a standstill. Yet you say this is better than Capitalism. > > > Michael Bishop > ihnp4!hpfcla!mike-b Socialism does *not* place the "group as the standard of value". It places equality of individuals within society as an important value. One could easily place the group as the standard of value and wind up with a very hierarchical and unequal antheap. That is what Hitler's fascism did - all for the Nation was Hitler's motto. The equality of individuals was not at all accepted in Nazi Germany. Indeed, besides Hitler having enormous amounts of power, Jews were not even given the right to exist. Democratic Socialism need not turn anybody into "animals to be sacrificed". If one accepts a basic equality between individuals as a central value then one also accepts that it would be a travesty of such equality to sacrifice one person for another person. If one person has the right to be fed, then all people have the right to be fed. That one person who has more may be forced to contribute to those who have less does not mean that person will be left with nothing. They will undoubtedly *still* have more than those worse off. But at least people who are old, handicapped, or otherwise debilitated will be able to preserve their right to life. Of course people who are able-bodied will be fed as well. I do not think this is so terrible. tim sevener whuxl!orb
faustus@ucbcad.UUCP (01/26/85)
> Socialism does *not* place the "group as the standard of value". It places > equality of individuals within society as an important value. > Democratic Socialism need not turn anybody into "animals to be sacrificed". > If one accepts a basic equality between individuals as a central value > then one also accepts that it would be a travesty of such equality to > sacrifice one person for another person. If one person has the right > to be fed, then all people have the right to be fed. That one person > who has more may be forced to contribute to those who have less > does not mean that person will be left with nothing. They will > undoubtedly *still* have more than those worse off. But at least people > who are old, handicapped, or otherwise debilitated will be able to preserve > their right to life. Of course people who are able-bodied will be > fed as well. I do not think this is so terrible. > > tim sevener whuxl!orb It's unclear whether you mean "equality of opportunity" or "equality of result". If you start people off with the same resources (a good education, mainly), I think that, with the possible exception of things they can't control like sickness and natural disasters, they should get what they get. What much socialism ends up as is "equality of result", where if somebody does better just because he works harder, or is more intelligent, he is penalized for this, or in the case of many communist societies, gets a medal and a handshake from the local part official for his trouble. (For an extreme version of "equality of result", a sort of paranoid libertarian's nightmare, read "The Fountainhead"...) Wayne