Is Socialism a good thing?

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Depending on how one defines "socialism", yes, but I prefer social democracy or distributism.  But any economic system is only as strong as its worst-off, be that capitalism, communism, socialism, or anything else.

By that principle, if we must have capitalism, then it should only be because all of the alternative systems fail the worst-off, which I don't believe is necessarily the case.  It should never be looked towards as a moral exemplar.  And while the state must have a role in any 'functioning' economy, no type of economy, planned or unplanned, will work if the people forego charity and empathy for hedonistic consumerism.  Inequality is ultimately a cultural and moral failing of society.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Also, this idea that socialists are 'against work' is a huge strawman.  Socialism is about owning the fruits of your own labor, rather than selling it to someone else.

If you think your boss is entitled to what you create because he gave you the tools and raw materials, then why is he not also entitled to your wife because he gave you the job you use to support her?  We have a word for people like that.  It starts with C, and it's not 'capitalist'.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Also, this idea that socialists are 'against work' is a huge strawman.  Socialism is about owning the fruits of your own labor, rather than selling it to someone else.

If you think your boss is entitled to what you create because he gave you the tools and raw materials, then why is he not also entitled to your wife because he gave you the job you use to support her?  We have a word for people like that.  It starts with C, and it's not 'capitalist'.

This is blatantly false as I have asked every socialist what we should do with non workers and they always give the answer of feed them its the humane option despite the fact feeding non workers would require stealing from workers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_each_according_to_his_contribution

Still, while letting people die for sloth might be the rational choice, I don't regard it as the moral one.  This is the main dilemma of whether we value material goods over human life.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Also, this idea that socialists are 'against work' is a huge strawman.  Socialism is about owning the fruits of your own labor, rather than selling it to someone else.

If you think your boss is entitled to what you create because he gave you the tools and raw materials, then why is he not also entitled to your wife because he gave you the job you use to support her?  We have a word for people like that.  It starts with C, and it's not 'capitalist'.

This is blatantly false as I have asked every socialist what we should do with non workers and they always give the answer of feed them its the humane option despite the fact feeding non workers would require stealing from workers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_each_according_to_his_contribution

Still, while letting people die for sloth might be the rational choice, I don't regard it as the moral one.  This is the main dilemma of whether we value material goods over human life.

Then is it moral to steal from worker a to feed non worker B?
Im arguing this in a purely communist society too(which will never happen)

What if Worker A refuses to give up his fruit?

Then Worker A suffers the moral and practical consequences of disregarding the community he serves, which in turn serves him.  The same can be said of the able-bodied worker who acts in a similar manner, but death is obviously the more severe penalty.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

So I think its clear communism isn't about keeping the fruits of your labor, when it comes to any realistic scenario for most communists.

Neither is capitalism.  But I'm not making an argument for either.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Also, this idea that socialists are 'against work' is a huge strawman.  Socialism is about owning the fruits of your own labor, rather than selling it to someone else.

Also, if you own something then that means you have the exclusive right to trade with it and sell it. If someone is preventing you from selling your labor, that means you don't own your labor. Seems pretty straightforward.

So if I work at Apple, I earn all the profit for what I produce?

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Also, this idea that socialists are 'against work' is a huge strawman.  Socialism is about owning the fruits of your own labor, rather than selling it to someone else.

Also, if you own something then that means you have the exclusive right to trade with it and sell it. If someone is preventing you from selling your labor, that means you don't own your labor. Seems pretty straightforward.

So if I work at Apple, I earn all the profit for what I produce?

Please do not tell me you actually believe in Marx's surplus value.

Surplus value really has no bearing on my economic views and Marx was quite poor at explaining it anyway, but a capitalist system does not actually allow you to own the proceeds from what you produce better than a democratic or guild system.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Also, this idea that socialists are 'against work' is a huge strawman.  Socialism is about owning the fruits of your own labor, rather than selling it to someone else.

Also, if you own something then that means you have the exclusive right to trade with it and sell it. If someone is preventing you from selling your labor, that means you don't own your labor. Seems pretty straightforward.

So if I work at Apple, I earn all the profit for what I produce?

Please do not tell me you actually believe in Marx's surplus value.

Surplus value really has no bearing on my economic views and Marx was quite poor at explaining it anyway, but a capitalist system does not actually allow you to own the proceeds from what you produce better than a democratic or guild system.

Elaborate on this. I cannot fathom why someone should be considered "more free" in a system where they are not allowed to exchange their labor for something.

You would be allowed to exchange your labor in a mutual system the same way you are in a capitalist one.  The difference is that you are able to earn a living by relying on your own property, instead of the property owned by a handful of wealthy individuals and corporations.  A farmer or a plumber who owns their own tools is also likely to commit more to their work.

The problem with capitalism is that it produces too few capitalists, not too many.  Guild systems were used for many years during the Middle Ages.  And guess what: you are better dressed, better fed, and better educated than all of the people who lived in that time.  But you don't own anything.  And under state capitalism (or state communism!), you're not going to own anything.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Also, this idea that socialists are 'against work' is a huge strawman.  Socialism is about owning the fruits of your own labor, rather than selling it to someone else.

Also, if you own something then that means you have the exclusive right to trade with it and sell it. If someone is preventing you from selling your labor, that means you don't own your labor. Seems pretty straightforward.

So if I work at Apple, I earn all the profit for what I produce?

Please do not tell me you actually believe in Marx's surplus value.

Surplus value really has no bearing on my economic views and Marx was quite poor at explaining it anyway, but a capitalist system does not actually allow you to own the proceeds from what you produce better than a democratic or guild system.

Elaborate on this. I cannot fathom why someone should be considered "more free" in a system where they are not allowed to exchange their labor for something.

You would be allowed to exchange your labor in a mutual system the same way you are in a capitalist one.  The difference is that you are able to earn a living by relying on your own property, instead of the property owned by a handful of wealthy individuals and corporations.  A farmer or a plumber who owns their own tools is also likely to commit more to their work.

The problem with capitalism is that it produces too few capitalists, not too many.  Guild systems were used for many years during the Middle Ages.  And guess what: you are better dressed, better fed, and better educated than all of the people who lived in that time.  But you don't own anything.  And under state capitalism (or state communism!), you're not going to own anything.

I'm not sure socialism is the right word for this. It sounds more like the distributism advocated by many C19-C20 Catholic economic thinkers.

Personally, I'm not really interested in the question of ownership, or why surplus value allegedly is or isn't a bullsh**t concept; I just think it's immoral on a society-wide level not to use resources to adequately feed and house as many people as possible when such resources manifestly exist.

Distributism is exactly what I'm advocating here.  I think that too many of Marx's theories have been proven wrong to justify rebuilding society on them.  When you remove the politically dictatorial elements that are a feature to communist states, capitalism and communism are not meaningfully different.  There has never in history been a classless, stateless society like Marx envisioned and there never will be.  The small communal society of the first Christians as described in the Book of Acts comes closest, but it is difficult if not impossible to implement that on a wide scale.