The workplace doesn't need to be organized from forces that do not participate in it.
Workers are not entitled to supreme authority over a workplace simply for working there. You work for McDonalds the corporation, you have no right to changing the menu. If you seek to change the menu, create your own restaurant.
The government under socialism doesn't preserve rights but rather spreads privileges. Forcefully revoking a privilege from a group or individual for such a reason is immoral.
Liberal values and Marxism are fundamentally opposed to each other. Liberty and equality are extremely different concepts, as one focuses on the individual's rights while the other focuses on the group's needs or privileges. Now, like many philosophies, there's some overlap and leeway that can be afforded, but for the most part, the fundamental ideas that Marxism stands for of worrying for the many do not apply to liberalism, which worries for the individual.
Marxism is inherently materialist. Liberalism is not. The Marxist state has goals and enforces from the top down (consider how you said socialism is about organizing the workplace, as if the government needs to organize things that are already organized in their own way). The Liberal state is called the Night Watchman state, only appearing when injustice does. Nobody but the Marxists believe that a worker creating a chair and selling it to his employer in return for a wage is injustice.
Freedom of choice is having the freedom to choose, not an entitlement to choices. You are free to choose what to do with yourself if you ever reach a fork in the road. You are not entitled to a road that has a fork in it. You are not entitled a job because you exist. No one aside from your parents owes you anything. You are not entitled to employment even though you spent several years getting a degree. No employer owes you anything.
This isn't to argue against social safety nets and other programs. Pure capitalism is a joke. The McNukes joke, the idea that McDonald's should be allowed to own nuclear arms, is technically consistent with liberalism. However, pure liberalism / pure capitalism wouldn't work in a large society, simply because not all humans are good willed. Following this, an overwhelming majority of liberals and capitalists you meet are most likely not against welfare, but they are against a welfare state. It is an important distinction to be made.
Calling something like college or work "free" doesn't make it free, because somebody has to teach you, somebody has to create the buildings, somebody has to establish the curriculum, somebody has to make the books, create the schedules, organize the staff, clean the floors, whatever it takes to run such a large institution. You might get some volunteers, but what will happen if nobody feels like doing this for free? What if the money provided by the government isn't enough? What is the logical next step?
Not all jobs merit a living wage. You could be hired to make paper cranes all day, that doesn't mean you should expect the same as someone who breaks their back in a warehouse. Not everyone contributed enough to society for society to give back enough to support them or their family. Frankly, I don't see why people who are tight on money keep starting families.
I'm also not a fan of the idea that getting employed by someone else is the only way to make money. It's a frankly childish view of how to be successful.
If this strive for "free" materials (equality) goes against Liberalism's notions of freedom, which will take priority? Letting people be free to wing it, even though that's unequal, or forcing the people into being equally educated, even though it might enter slavery territory?
Social engineering is not the same as trying to indirectly steer the economy in a certain direction (keyword, indirectly). The government did not demand cheese production, the government invested in the cheese market and hoped it would go well. At no point in time did the government decide that the entirety of Wisconsin create worker co-ops to increase cheese production. Odds are, the government saw how well Wisconsin (I know you didn't mention Wisconsin but they make an ungodly amount of cheese) creates cheese and decided to stimulate it for the benefit of both the farmers and the country's exports.
Social engineering is not simply placing people in a place where they are useful, social engineering is actively replacing already existing people and workers in order to advance a government agenda. Giving the government to kick out people in managerial positions because an employee thought they could do it better is dangerous. The government has a monopoly on violence. This is a recipe for a terrifyingly authoritarian state.
It should be noted that fascism and socialism are incredibly alike, in the sense that both the socialists and fascists believe in redistribution of those who go against the state's agenda (the socialists and Communists may want state-mandated worker co-ops, the Fascists may want state-mandated propaganda outlets).
This is why Fascist nations often appropriated land from those who went against the government, nationalized it, then handed it over to those who were willing to bend over to the government's demands.
Typically, I think socialists are simply fascists who don't understand the long-term consequences of their beliefs. Consider just how many times Hitler wrote about how he would whip the bourgeoise into obeying what the government told them to do. In the same manner that the fascists appropriate land, nationalize it, and find a designated state actor to take care of it, the socialists have no problem using the state to kick out the boss and replace him with either a collective or a "nicer", state-approved boss.
I recommend ShortFatOtaku's "Fascism is Honest Socialism" on YouTube. If you do watch it, let me know. I'd be happy to hear your thoughts afterwards.
In conclusion,
socialism bad.
edit: I forgot the post was all about the video lol. watch it anyway
Forum:
Report Topic
Permalink
