you still haven't explained why Socialism is good @Xinyue

he never got the chance

from what I can see

talked to him befoe

i see

nevermind then

Its good for a number of reasons, depending on the perspective - some of which are mutually contradictory. But I'll give you my view on it.

Socialism is good because it allows the social totality to harmonise itself around the creative process of labour and production. It allows the power relations to be equalised in a manner which allows the emergence of a true societal consensus politics - unhampered by wealth and influence disparities. More importantly than anything else, it allows man to take part in unalienated labour - labour unalienated from

a) the *product* of the labour in question
b) the *objective* of the labour in question
c) the *society* in which the labour in question takes place
d) the *coworkers* in the labour process in question

In brief, socialism is that system which brings society and men together in a way that no other societal system can. It recognises that the place of human creative and productive agency is primary, and further it realises the social nature of men, and then synthesises these two realisations into one coherent, comprehensive socio-economic system.

Life doesn't work that way

what if life do life in that way

Life doesn't work in any one given way. Life is chaos, with near infinite number of possibilities.

Wat

yes

If I work, why would I want to decrease the amount of my paycheck I receive (the amount I can use to invest in my family and their future) in order to redistribute it towards those who don't work?

That's not what socialism is about

I know socialism is far more complicated

if im correct, socialism does away with currency

yeah capitalist currency doesn't really exist as such in socialism

at the most, socialism would have barter

and its about the workers controlling production, communications etc. infrastructure via councils, its a system which is divorced from the rationales of capitalism

My point is that welfare is bad for working men and their families.

in socialism, people as a rule work

you choose what you work on, but you do work

Why should workers control this stuff?

or as socialists put it: *socially useful labour*

I think elites should

@appalachianboy Welcome!

the infrastructure which all of us are dependent on, should be in the purview of all to decide on

Those who are experts, specializing in management and rule

That's just democracy

yes, socialism in purest terms is democracy applied to economics and production

Children shouldn't vote on their bed time

The father, who rules over his children, who owns the house, who feeds them, should decide

the problem with democracy is that 2 idiots are more powerful than 1 intellectual

The only superfluous figure in an enterprise is the capitalist management. You can remove the capitalist, and have an enterprise still function, but you cannot remove the whole staff and leave the capitalist. This is a reality of enterprises, how they are based, a reality on their character.

@Xinyue You have to explain why a "true societal consensus politics" is a good thing, your basically advocating a truer democracy i guess..

about taking part in labor unaliented by the result, i think first of all that's utopian.. second even if you had it, it sounds like hell.
Why would you try to improve yourself or conform to society maintaining the social structure if you don't fail hard or have societal checks on you?

Also, even in Socialism, there is an Aristocracy, an Intelligentsia, so there isn't this total equality, this situation can be created by other systems that have proven to be far more sustainable.

@AdorableStormtrooper I don't think I can put it forward in a way that you will find satisfying. Our ethical and ontological views are far too much apart. It relates to my views on consciousness, how consciousness relates to the natural world, and why anything at all exists. It goes into my existential views which are too bothersome and obnoxious to go into here. But I have my own philosophical views which affirm the ethical necessity of this. Similar to, and originating from, my Buddhist years.

Apparently corporations are willing to pay their executives significantly more than a low level employee.

```The only superfluous figure in an enterprise is the capitalist management. You can remove the capitalist, and have an enterprise still function, but you cannot remove the whole staff and leave the capitalist. This is a reality of enterprises, how they are based, a reality on their character.```


there were man made Famines in Soviet Ukraine based on this delusion, just remove the most competitive leadership among you that has arisen and everything will be fine, no better! it wasn't

Why would that be? According to you the low level employees are essential and the executive is completely superfluous

It seems like the corporations value executives significantly more, which is why they pay them so much more.