Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site whuxl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxj!houxm!whuxl!orb
From: orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Socialism vs Capitalism:Part 1
Message-ID: <451@whuxl.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 24-Jan-85 18:15:26 EST
Article-I.D.: whuxl.451
Posted: Thu Jan 24 18:15:26 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 25-Jan-85 09:01:46 EST
References: <-25200@gargoyle.UUCP> <13600008@hpfclp.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Labs
Lines: 37

> 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