| Vincoletto said: Most people want to have a house for themselves, that they can expand, change or do whatever they want. Has been like this since forever. Most people want to make plans for the future, maybe because they are cautious, hence saving money in whatever form it exist. Some people have a lot of energy and just want to work 12 hours per day to aquire more stuff if they want, for whatever reason. A lot of people are just assholes or evil, therefore I think we will always need to have a form of police. Also I think a higher authority will always be necessary to organize the society and be the judge when problems appear. Unfortunately, the state is necessary and deep inside I think most people want to have someone to ask for help when problems or injusticies appear. I could write a lot more stuff but those are maybe the main reasons why I think socialism is Idealistic (as you corrected me, instead of utopic). I think it can never work, either state socialism or anarch capitalism (what is the correct name anyway?). Also, usually when people defend socialism, they do not address those questions above, they just keep repeating the same sentences that seem to be out of a communist book. When I read words like proletariat or burgoinese it just makes me cringe. By the way I like your argumentation
|
very far from the same old classic rich vs poor speeches. Socialism is not incompatible with having a house for oneself through one's own effort and labor. It's incompatible with having a house where you charge others a rent to live in without using said rent to improve the house. In other words socialism is against profiting off other's labor through house-rents, land-rents, and the land monopoly.
Socialism is not opposed to working more if you freely choose to do so. It is opposed to working more because your economic ruler (boss) requires you to do so and the only reason to consent is because it is he or she who has control over the capital and resources which you need to live. This control is fundamentally based on state protections and privileges.
Why does any authority have to be above you? Why can't you and the other person in conflict appoint a mutually trusted peer (or group of peers) to settle a dispute? Why must you accept a unilateral authority independent of your (and others') will?
Last edited by sc94597 - on 04 February 2018
