Quote:
|
Originally Posted by godisdead
I think that's the main point in which we disagree. But I think the reason is a misunderstanding. The goal of "good of all" is flawed, I think.
If you say: People shouldn't just work for themselves, but for the good of all, this just means that you are not rewarded according to your actual productivity and that others (who are less productive) live by the results of your work.
This is completely okay, if you have agreed to this. And this is completely okay in capitalism. The moral problem appears when you want to keep what you've been working for (which is perfectly justified as far as I can see), you may do so under capitalism, but are punished under socialism. I have nothing against acts of benevolence, but enforcing altruism with a gun is just wrong and that's what is wrong with socialism.
So your idea is that man has no fundamental nature and can adapt to pretty much everything? I think that's wrong. And I think that the downfall of every nation that has tried socialism so far has pretty much proven that. People don't work if they can't choose what happens to the product of their labor.
|
I also don't think it can ever work because it only makes sense in a utopian environment with no contact with the rest of the world after a long period of "orientation" of kids who have no contact with their parents...who were long kicked out of this utopia. Kind of like Pol Pot wanting to start the clock again at Year 0 in Cambodia.
So obviously that is impossible and very disturbing to even consider and I don't even know if human nature is that adabtable but I believe you cannot see beyond the boundaries of your experiences and our world-view in a capitalist society makes Marxism look like a stupid social order, but I think sounds beautiful if it was possible.