Are Socialists Really Collectivistic?

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't mean you can't object to that stuff. Of course you can. I'm just saying you can't claim the moral high ground if he wants you to pay for wars and social programs just because your way leads to more production.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually the problem is that they both claim the moral high ground and both claim that the other is wrong and both 'know' they are right when they are both just cells of the human. Maybe neither one knows what's best for the human. Maybe they both do. Maybe their exact conflict is what is best for the human. How can they be a cell of the human and at the same time be an entity that knows what is best for the human (not to mention what is best for the human's habitat)?

[SNOWBALL]

[ QUOTE ]

This is, in my opinion, extremely analogous to the socialist view of society. The individuals they aim to help are undoubtedly a drain on society.

[/ QUOTE ]

Marxists have exactly the opposite view. We see the working class as producing value, and the capitalists as parasitically extracting it. I think your post better applies to liberal democrats, and even then it only applies to a small part of their agenda.

[tehox]

I think that Snowball makes a very good point.

In any case, I don't think there is anything really groundbreaking here, as you are not going to find anyone that knows what they're talking about to disagree with you. When you are talking about using resources to help out those are a drain on a society, I think it all comes down to how you define the "greater good". If we killed all babies that were mentally or physically handicapped, you could argue that that would be to the "greater good" of society.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

This is, in my opinion, extremely analogous to the socialist view of society. The individuals they aim to help are undoubtedly a drain on society.

[/ QUOTE ]

Marxists have exactly the opposite view. We see the working class as producing value, and the capitalists as parasitically extracting it. I think your post better applies to liberal democrats, and even then it only applies to a small part of their agenda.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this. I think I should have made it more clear that I was speaking specifically about modern day liberal democrats (which is about 90% of the far left). Modern socialists are not fans of sending the unproductive off to the gulags; they're fans of subsidizing them.

[iron81]

I suppose I can't argue with HMK's first point, that liberal seek to help people one at a time rather than all at once. However, it is a mistake to think we are focused solely on the poor. Liberals favor government involvement in areas like health care, education and mass transit that benefit everyone. We believe that government is a force for good in the world and can improve the lives of everyone.

To torture HMK's anatomy analogy, the body devotes significant resources to repairing damaged cells: whether its providing amino acids to repair damaged nucleotides or white blood cells to protect them from bacteria, significant resources are devoted to keeping cells healthy. The body does not kill cells just because they are imperfect or damaged.

The point of modern liberalism is not to keep people alive regardless of their contribution to society, it is to make as many people as possible productive. Someone who is not healthy will not be productive. Someone who cannot get to a job will not be productive. Someone who doesn't have the skills that employers need will not be productive. This is what liberalism provides: the tools that people can not or do not provide themselves to lead productive lives.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
The point of modern liberalism is not to keep people alive regardless of their contribution to society, it is to make as many people as possible productive.

[/ QUOTE ]

*stare*

I have no idea how I am supposed to respond to this one.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]

The point of modern liberalism is not to keep people alive regardless of their contribution to society, it is to make as many people as possible productive.

[/ QUOTE ]

In my experience in working within the government systsem I would say that nothing could be further from the truth. Entitlement programs do exactly the opposite, they make people unproductive.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The point of modern liberalism is not to keep people alive regardless of their contribution to society, it is to make as many people as possible productive.

[/ QUOTE ]

*stare*

I have no idea how I am supposed to respond to this one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Iron,

I could wave a magic wand and claim that the purpose of my new policy is to make my dick 3 inches bigger. But if there's no reason to suspect that would actually work, then that isn't the real point.

It's nice that you want as many people as possible to be productive though. I guess this is fodder for hmk's "misguided" claim.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The point of modern liberalism is not to keep people alive regardless of their contribution to society, it is to make as many people as possible productive.

[/ QUOTE ]

In my experience in working within the government systsem I would say that nothing could be further from the truth. Entitlement programs do exactly the opposite, they make people unproductive.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the context of this discussion, the effectiveness of the programs is somewhate irrelevant. hmk is making claims as to the motives/objectives of modern liberals. To the extent that the programs work or fail does not change the intended purpose. To use the design flaws of social programs to denounce the intent of the social programs is analagous to saying "Brakes on cars aren't really meant to stop cars. How do I know? Sometimes the brakes fail."

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The point of modern liberalism is not to keep people alive regardless of their contribution to society, it is to make as many people as possible productive.

[/ QUOTE ]

*stare*

I have no idea how I am supposed to respond to this one.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's because it runs against your fundamental view of maximizing social utility. As you've shown in many of your posts, you believe that society is most efficiently run when people are most highly incentivized to work hard and produce value. To the modern liberal, the perspective is that all the incentive in the world to generate value for society is irrelevant when the opportunity to contribute is not there. Social programs are not intended to "pay off" people who are lazy or crazy. Redistribution of wealth is not intended to reward people who set piles of money on fire and therefore end up poor. The intent of social programs is to provide ample opportunity for everyone to contribute to the society/economy in the future.

You can argue that the programs are not designed properly.

You can argue that the natural competitive forces will create opportunity without the guiding hand of a liberal government.

You can argue that the rewards to the voluntarily unproductive exceed the value created by making more opportunities.

But you can't say modern liberals want what is worse for the collective because they prop up the least productive individuals in the collective. You may be able to convince yourself that the net effect of the social programs is to reduce productivity. But you are completely ignoring that social programs create opportunities for productivity where they otherwise may not exist.