3 ms·

From what I understand the basic qualm that socialists have, concerns the moral justification for owning income generating assets. Everything else stems from t

From what I understand the basic qualm that socialists have, concerns the moral justification for owning income generating assets. Everything else stems from that. Although I believe some would rather argue from an utilitarian point of view rather than from a moral one.

ghosterrific 8y ago
You are correct. Examples: Tooth brush for personal use: Good. Use said Tooth brush for cleaning someone's toilet to earn some money: bad. Use your hands to dig your own hole: good. Use your hands (a mean of production) to dig someone else a hole for money: bad. It logically follows that public ownership of the means of production results in the ownership of our homes, bodies and ultimately, minds. That is the intentional theory and actual practical implementation of communist ideology. It ia very dangerous because it is cloaked in "helping the greater good" and anyone who dare show initiative and put their hands to work without getting a politician to sign off on it results with you and your family getting sent to "labor" and "education" camps. Once again, not in theory... this happened several times in the 20th century resulting in over 100 million dead
- nahnahnah3 8y ago
  You're correct, but stateless socialism is the goal. What you're describing is state capitalism.
aninhumer 8y ago
Socialists usually also argue from a utilitarian point of view. The utility a person experiences as a result of increasing access to resources is sublinear, i.e. there are diminishing utility returns to an individual as they acquire resources. Therefore an unequal resource allocation is less efficient at creating utility than an equal one. It is argued that the inequality creates incentives that result in more being produced, but many socialists are highly sceptical of this claim, and especially sceptical that the level of inequality that exists is worth the loss of utility it causes. Personally, I think after a certain level of comfort is reached, people seem to be far more motivated by self-actualisation than ever increasing material wealth.

ghosterrific 8y ago

You are correct. Examples: Tooth brush for personal use: Good. Use said Tooth brush for cleaning someone's toilet to earn some money: bad. Use your hands to dig your own hole: good. Use your hands (a mean of production) to dig someone else a hole for money: bad. It logically follows that public ownership of the means of production results in the ownership of our homes, bodies and ultimately, minds. That is the intentional theory and actual practical implementation of communist ideology. It ia very dangerous because it is cloaked in "helping the greater good" and anyone who dare show initiative and put their hands to work without getting a politician to sign off on it results with you and your family getting sent to "labor" and "education" camps. Once again, not in theory... this happened several times in the 20th century resulting in over 100 million dead

nahnahnah3 8y ago
You're correct, but stateless socialism is the goal. What you're describing is state capitalism.

aninhumer 8y ago

Socialists usually also argue from a utilitarian point of view. The utility a person experiences as a result of increasing access to resources is sublinear, i.e. there are diminishing utility returns to an individual as they acquire resources. Therefore an unequal resource allocation is less efficient at creating utility than an equal one. It is argued that the inequality creates incentives that result in more being produced, but many socialists are highly sceptical of this claim, and especially sceptical that the level of inequality that exists is worth the loss of utility it causes. Personally, I think after a certain level of comfort is reached, people seem to be far more motivated by self-actualisation than ever increasing material wealth.