Why I am a Socialist

Socialists versus Capitalism

Socialists hold that Capitalism has grave economic and moral flaws and advocate a revolutionary socio-economic reform to remedy those flaws. Economic flaws include; vast unjust inequalities in wealth, income, opportunity and power, moral flaws include excessive individualism, competition and materialism and the exploitation of ordinary working people.

Psychologist Dr. Robert Hare lists a number of psychopathic traits and ties them to the behavior of corporations:

“Callous unconcern for the feelings for others; incapacity to maintain enduring relationships; reckless disregard for the safety of others; deceitfulness: repeated lying and conning others for profit; incapacity to experience guilt; failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behavior. And yet, under the American legal system, corporations have the same legal rights as individuals. They give hundreds of millions of dollars to political candidates, fund the army of some 35,000 lobbyists in Washington and thousands more in state capitals to write corporate-friendly legislation, drain taxpayer funds and abolish government oversight. They saturate the airwaves, the Internet, newsprint and magazines with advertisements promoting their brands as the friendly face of the corporation. They have high-priced legal teams, millions of employees, skilled public relations firms and thousands of elected officials to ward off public intrusions into their affairs or halt messy lawsuits. They hold a near monopoly on all electronic and printed sources of information. A few media giants-AOL-Time Warner, General Electric, Viacom, Disney and Rupert Murdoch's NewsGroup-control nearly everything we read, see and hear.”

Certain elements of Socialist thought have been present throughout the history of Philosophy, from Plato’s Republic to Sir Thomas Moore’s Utopia. The term “Socialism” was first used by the social reformer, Robert Owen, in the early 19th century. He and other social critics were speaking out against the excesses and injustices of early Capitalism. The first recorded instance of the use of the word was in a letter he wrote to a Manchester Cleric. The word was taken up by French reformers such as Saint-Simon and Pierre Proudhon and soon came into common use to refer to the transformation of society into small communities where private property would be abolished and a radical redistribution of wealth would take place.

Socialism is built on three principles;

Nothing but a number to the boss.

Own the means whereby you live

The first principle of Socialism is ownership of the means of production.

All the things that we work for and obtain for ourselves by honest labor are ours. There is a big lie put out that under socialism everything belongs to Big Brother. The opposite is true. There is a big difference between a possession and owning the means of producing that item. Having a television does not make you rich. Owning the company that makes televisions is a very different matter. The means of production are the factories, the mines, the printing presses, the building materials. These are the things that create wealth. The ownership of these by a handful of people or, in the case of the former soviet bloc, a state that ran industry on behalf of that minority, allows them to control governments dictate policies and ultimately create the chaos of boom, slump and depression. Social ownership would encourage production for the good of all not the wealth of the few. Socialism would result in a more equal distribution of income and wealth than typically found in capitalism

“In making itself the master of all the means of production, in order to use them in accordance with a social plan, society puts an end to the former subjection of men to their own means of production. It goes without saying that society cannot itself be free unless every individual is free. The old mode of production must therefore be revolutionized from top to bottom. Its place must be taken by an organization of production in which, on the one hand, no individual can put on to other persons his share of the productive labor, this natural condition of human existence; and in which on the other hand productive labor, instead of being a means to the subjection of men, will become a means to their emancipation, by giving each individual the opportunity to develop and exercise all his faculties.”

Frederick Engels “Anti-Duhrung”

John Ball, 14th century socialist priest

Equality

The second principle of Socialism is Equality;

Socialists oppose the unjust oppression of one group of people by another. Whether by class domination, discrimination or the unequal distribution of power, Socialism, in the broad sense, champions the underdogs of society.

During the peasant’s revolt of 1381, the Priest John Ball addressed the peasants with this famous speech.

“When Adam delved and Eve span, who was then the gentleman? From the beginning all men by nature were created alike, and our bondage or servitude came in by the unjust oppression of naughty men. For if God would have had any bondmen from the beginning, he would have appointed who should be bond and who free. And therefore I exhort you to consider that now the time is come, appointed to us by God, in which ye may (if ye will) cast off the yoke of bondage, and recover liberty.”

The principle of equality is ridiculed by rich people and their newspapers on the grounds that people are not the same. Of course people are not the same; we all have different likes, dislikes, abilities and characters. Equality is not sameness. Equality means the rewards people receive from society and their opportunities for basic human needs should not differ because people are not the same.
Socialists in their commitment to equality and human dignity find themselves on the side of those who are marginalized in society by race, gender or sexual orientation. Socialism, in its quest for equality is ultimately the fight for the dignity of humankind.

The shortest way to Equality is to provide basic human needs to all free of charge. This would mean, free health care, free education, free housing with security of tenure, free access to basic nourishment. This would become the “Social wage” the basic needs of humanity become the top priorities of Socialism.

Democracy

The third principle of Socialism is Democracy;

Socialism is often caricatured as a repressive state run by bureaucrats stamping their prejudices and favoritisms on society with secret police and torture chambers. This lie is promulgated by wealthy businessmen who run their companies by stamping their prejudices and favoritisms on a select few of the workforce. It is a central feature of Socialism that those who make decisions should be directly accountable to those who are affected by them. Democracy, in a capitalist society is limited to the ballot box. A few crosses in a lifetime and we are fooled into thinking we have a democratic society. In reality power is not held by governments, in the areas that matter such as; industry, finance, the police departments, the army, there is no democracy at all. Politicians can be democratically elected or un-elected. Not so with corporations. They control every aspect of our lives and place us under a true totalitarian society where their word is law above any laws of elected government.

In a Socialist society democracy extends to every aspect of those areas that directly affect our lives. Democracy and Socialism are indispensible to each other, it is impossible to have Socialism without Democracy. There cannot be Freedom and there cannot be Democracy while private capital controls the government and the press. Otherwise:

"The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights."

Albert Einstein “Why I am a Socialist” in the Monthly Review, 1949.

Vladymir Illyich Lenin & Josef Stalin

The Soviet failure

It seems impossible these days to speak of Socialism without reference to the fall of the Russian soviet empire. Socialism in Russia failed soon after its beginning though that beginning was bright. The American journalist, John Reed attended the meetings at the Smolny institute held just after the revolution. He also visited the battlefront where the army of Kerensky the “White Russians” were defeated he wrote of travelling back to Petrograd in a truck driven by an old workman;

‘Across the horizon spread the glittering lights of the capital, immeasurably more splendid by night than by day, like a dike of jewels on the barren plain. The old workman who drove held the wheel in one hand, while with the other he swept the far-gleaming capital with an exultant gesture. “Mine!” he cried his face alight. “All mine now! My Petrograd!”‘

Far from being a totalitarian state in those early days, democracy was raised to heights unknown in Russia to that time. Victor Serge was a Belgian revolutionary who joined the revolution in its early years, he wrote;

‘In the years of the greatest peril the Soviets and the central executive committee of the Soviets included left social revolutionaries (who were part of the government in the first nine months), Maximalists, anarchists, Menshevik social democrats, and even right social revolutionaries – the latter unalterable enemies of the new power. Far from fearing discussion, Lenin seeks after it, having Martov and Dan, who had been expelled from the All-Russian executive, invited to come to take the floor. He feels that he has something to learn from their merciless criticism’.

Martov and Dan were Mensheviks with policies similar to the left wing of the Democrat party. They had actively opposed the revolution calling for mass demonstrations against it. During the 20’s the Mensheviks had elected representatives in all the cities and a club in Moscow. They were losing ground, not because of repression but because the Bolsheviks were winning the argument. However, Lenin recognized that the revolution in the land was different to the revolution in the cities. There were approximately three million industrial workers and some hundred million agricultural workers. Lenin realized that the revolution could not succeed unless it spread to other countries’

‘Even before the revolution, and likewise after it, our thought was: immediately, or at any rate very quickly, a revolution will begin in other countries, in capitalistically more developed countries – or, in the contrary case, we will have to perish

Vladimir Lenin, Teacher’s Congress in Moscow, may 1919.

Rosa Luxemburg who led the socialist group in pre-war Germany before they were ruthlessly crushed by the rise of Fascism, stated that; “However strong people's socialist commitment, as soon as they are involved even to the slightest degree in managing the system on behalf of capitalists, they will be lost to the socialist cause.”

This was the case in Russia. After Lenin’s death and Stalin’s coup 80% of the leaders of the original revolution were killed or exiled. Russia became Socialist in name only. The state became the capitalist supreme and the workers were cut off from economic and political power just as much, if not more, than in the western capitalist countries.

The one thing that the failed Russian experiment taught us is that we cannot rely on leaders or personalities. True democracy belongs to the people not to the cult of the individual. We are the leader we have been waiting for.

Workers of the World, Unite!

More by Billy Bragg

The New Jerusalem

For myself, my ideas of Socialism were first formed by the politics of South Wales.I was born a member of the Welsh working class, an identifiable community. There was no searching for roots or identity; we knew who we were at an instinctive level. Our whole society and education was based around a principle that has not changed; get a good education so you can be valuable to someone who will give you a job. Your economic worth is measured by how valuable you are to the capitalist. If you are not valuable enough then you are on the scrap heap. Socialism places the person first. Not as a commodity existing as just another raw material to be exploited, but as a person with human dignity. Sickness, poverty and homelessness are seen as indictments of society, not a condemnation of the unfortunate individual.

Politicians can be democratically elected or un-elected. Not so with corporations. They control every aspect of our lives and place us under a true totalitarian society where their word is law above any laws of elected government.

 The politicians of Wales expressed their Socialist principles in biblical terms; “I am come that they might have life, and that more abundantly” was a common theme at meetings. Most, even today would define Socialism in terms of the Sermon on the Mount. Equality is measured in the frame of us all as children of God. It becomes difficult for a Socialist with a Christian frame of reference to understand how there can be agreement on the concept of a world freed from sickness and poverty and yet be opposed to efforts made to achieve that end. Ramsey MacDonald was the first Socialist Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. In a speech he delivered to his party he quoted from William Blake’s poem “Jerusalem”

“I will not cease from mortal strife, nor will my sword sleep in my hand, ‘till I have built Jerusalem, on England’s green and pleasant land.”

As the world progresses onwards there is a drive, an inexorable push within mankind to strive for a better world. This drive causes us to provide a better future for our children than the one we had. There is a dream of freedom in us all and this is the moral imperative of Socialism, the drive to make the dream of freedom, peace and well-being a reality. It is this dream; this striving to a better day that has pulled the masses out of slavery, out of serfdom, out of feudalism and slowly but surely it draws us out of the global, one-world tyranny of the multi-national corporations. The quest for the New Jerusalem with all that means in every real sense is the ultimate goal of Socialism.

More by this Author

  • The Bhagavad Gita.
    14

    The continent of India has, within its religions and culture many truly epic tales. One of these legends is the Mabharata. It is within this legend that the Bhagavad Gita appears. The Mabharata is the tale of a feud...

  • The Mysterious Death of Harold Godwinson at Hastings
    25

    It is commonly believed that Harold Godwinson, last Saxon King of England, died at the battle of Hastings with an arrow in his eye. What is less well known is that this version of his death was questioned at the time;...

  • Light of Aidan-Lament, the lyrics
    24

    In early September 2009 I was approached by Human LLC to write a Welsh song for a commercial they were making for the new Halo 3 ODST game that was soon to be launched. I was shown the video and given suggestions of the...


Comments 35 comments

knell63 profile image

knell63 6 years ago from Umbria, Italy

Great hub Ianto, nice to hear good old fashioned, proper principles of socialism proclaimed. It's sad to see how corrupted and distorted it's name has become, once again only benefiting the few.


iantoPF profile image

iantoPF 6 years ago from Sunny California Author

Thank you Knell. Im expecting some flack on this because "Socialism" is such a dirty word in America. I'm grateful to you for being the first and being positive.


American Romance profile image

American Romance 6 years ago from America

............sooooo you prescibe to an ideology that has failed world wide through out history? Interesting, Freedom comes from non government intervention so ideas can be turned into ambition and desire to succeed! This is what built America into the greatest nation on earth! Sorry you don't understand history!


iantoPF profile image

iantoPF 6 years ago from Sunny California Author

Hello American Romance; But it is succeeding. Look at history as a whole and you see the movement from serfdom, feudalism to the great industrial revolution to the present day. We live in a fairer more equal society than our fathers and grandfathers. Somtimes progress is slower than at other times and sometimes there is a step back but through it all humankind is moving towards the society I describe.

The inexorable desire for true freedom and democracy may be delayed but it will never be halted.


TeaPartyCrasher profile image

TeaPartyCrasher 6 years ago from Camp Hill, PA

ianto:

You have excuse AR, he's an example of how well the corps and their CEOs can manipulate people.

But it does seem to me that the term "socialism" is used to demonize any idea that puts anything ahead of private profits.


American Romance profile image

American Romance 6 years ago from America

I see the European countries returning to conservatism? I see America making an about face away from socialist ideas, We noticed Russia move back away from socialist views years ago, So I guess I'm not smart enough to get your rant?


iantoPF profile image

iantoPF 6 years ago from Sunny California Author

hello TeaParty Crasher and welcome. Thank you for your comments and yes, I will excuse AR.

yes, I agree there too. anything that sounds like a social conscience is immediately condemned by that bad word.


iantoPF profile image

iantoPF 6 years ago from Sunny California Author

No AR, I guess you are not.


Eiddwen profile image

Eiddwen 6 years ago from Wales

Another briiliant hub ianto. A very well researched and so interesting.Da iawn unwaith eto ianto.


iantoPF profile image

iantoPF 6 years ago from Sunny California Author

Hello Eiddwen; Thank you. I'm sure you know that Robert Owen was born in Newtown, Montgomeryshire. So "Socialism" is a word invented by a Welshman.


Eiddwen profile image

Eiddwen 6 years ago from Wales

Yes I did know that Robert Owen was a Welshman. I'm afraid that I did not know an awful lot about him, only that he did a lot of work with youngsters and that he was the founder of infant chidcare in Great Britain. Your hub was so interesting. I have to agree with your views because 'Socialism' is definitely not a dirty word in my book either! Carry on with your good work ianto! Ardderchog!!


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 6 years ago from Chicago

I like you as a Hubber but socialism is terrible. Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, Castro . . . "We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us." Quote from a Russian factory worker.

The fact that wealth is built on the backs of laborers is a horrible myth. If that were so, Russia, India, and China would have been far more wealthy than the United States—they had far more laborers. If you know as a child that no matter how hard you study, train, educate yourself, work, create, innovate, and save you will get the same reward as if you did absolutely nothing: it does not work. The only way to make people equal is bring down the more talented, creative, intelligent, handsome, athletic to average or below. You cannot raise people to artificial levels. Read "Harrison Bergeron."

It is precisely free market capitalism that creates the wealth in the world, that lifts all boats. Look at North Korea and South Korea and you decide.


tonymac04 profile image

tonymac04 6 years ago from South Africa

Loved this Hub - thank you! I find it strange that those who would argue against socialism do so by bringing in all those tyrants who used socialism as a mask for their evil intents. The right also fails to notice things like that life expectancy was higher and infant mortality lower in Cuba in the recent past (I don't have up-to-date stats but this was only a few years ago). Not that I am an apologist for Castro - his regime was still relatively racist and for a long, long time included no blacks in spite of the large proportion of Cuba's population being black.

Anyway I enjoyed reading a positive take on socialism for a change!

Love and peace

Tony


iantoPF profile image

iantoPF 5 years ago from Sunny California Author

Hello James; I admire your work as you well know but we will never agree on Religion or Politics.

This Hub was not written to convert or change anyones mind. That is a futile endeavour. It was written to express my view of Socialism. I view Socilaism as courageous and a noble cause that raises the very lowest among us to the stature of Kings. I look to a world where the valleys are exalted and the high places made low, where there will be no sickness or hunger and poverty of the body and mind will be a thing of the past. That is Socialism.

However this is a place of comment not of debate and I do appreciate you taking the time to comment. I am an enduring fan of your work. My very best wishes.


iantoPF profile image

iantoPF 5 years ago from Sunny California Author

Hello Tonymac; Thank you for reading and commenting. I find it heartening that the only argument against socialism is to use the example of ruthless dictators, when Socialism is all about the rule of the people. It shows that there is no real argument against Socialism itself. All that can be presented at this point are excuses for supporting a bankrupt system.

Thank you for participating here I am grateful to you and the others who show me that I'm not alone in this place.


tonymac04 profile image

tonymac04 5 years ago from South Africa

You are not alone!


iantoPF profile image

iantoPF 5 years ago from Sunny California Author

Thank you Tony.


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 5 years ago from Chicago

I apologize my for tone. I tried to hold my tongue. Perhaps I should have.


Stan Fletcher profile image

Stan Fletcher 5 years ago from Nashville, TN

ianto - this is the first hub of yours that I've read. Although I disagree with your main points, I sense that you are a great person. It's good for me to read opposing views and be thoughtful about them. Sometimes I change my mind about things. Thanks for presenting your points so clearly. Anxious to read more.


iantoPF profile image

iantoPF 5 years ago from Sunny California Author

Hello Stan; Thank you for reading and commenting. As I mentioned to James, I'm not trying to change anyone's mind, my Hubs are written for you to enjoy and if i have succeeded in that I feel i have done well.

Best Wishes.......ianto


Don W profile image

Don W 5 years ago

Thanks for this. Not only the content, but the passion and clarity with which you convey it. I can't see how anyone could fail to be inspired by the sentiments expressed here about human dignity and freedom, regardless of personal political ideology.

These sentiments are surely the common values we can all share, regardless of which system of government or economic system we believe is best for achieving them. Establishing where we are trying to get to is important, even if we can't decide which 'ism' will get us there. In that regard your hub rises above a simple peddling of your own pet 'ism'. It's an impassioned explanation of your hopes for humanity, and how Socialism for you is the means to get there.

Also the conection with Robert Owen, a fellow Welshman, and the description of your personal background made your message genuine and moving. Describing yourself and your beliefs almost as a product of "the politics of South Wales" really says something of the place and its people, both of which I know. Great hub.

p.s. did you consider running for leader of the labour party? You might have done quite well!


iantoPF profile image

iantoPF 5 years ago from Sunny California Author

Thank you Don: I really appreciate your comments, thank you.

As far as "leader of the Labor party" goes. I will hide nothing from you, I am a life long member and supporter of Plaid Cymru, the Welsh separatist party. I have many a tale to tell of my youth, running from the cops and sitting in the Pub drinking beer and talking treason.

Happy memories,

Best Wishes.........ianto.


Charles James profile image

Charles James 5 years ago from Yorkshire, UK

A great hub! I was beginning to think I was the only declared socialist on Hub Pages!

So if you are a socialist, with working class unity in your bones, why are you with Plaid instead of Labour?


iantoPF profile image

iantoPF 5 years ago from Sunny California Author

Hello Charles and thank you.

It's a relief to me also. :)

The labour party long left it's socia;ism behind, though the party in Wales does try and show "Clear red water" between themselves and the rest of the party.

I've never been a part of the Labour party, my instincts and eventually my political ideology developed in the Welsh working class and so I am more inclined towards the devolved Community socialism of Plaid.


Aya Katz profile image

Aya Katz 5 years ago from The Ozarks

Corporations are an affront to free enterprise, precisely because they allow people to possess collectively rights that they do not have individually: namely, limited liability. Do away with limited liability, and you will find all the corruption surrounding corporations will disappear.

Capitalism -- in the sense of concentrating capital in the hands of corporations -- may not be that wonderful, but socialism is just like allowing the entire country to be run as if it were a corporation.

Free enterprise (and not capitalism or socialism) is the answer.


iantoPF profile image

iantoPF 5 years ago from Sunny California Author

Hello Aya; Intersting points you make there and I totally agree that Corporations do work against the best aspects of society in many ways and the state can become the corporation supreme, but as I mention in the part concernig the Soviet Union, That was nothing other than state capitalism and that is not socialism.


Charles James profile image

Charles James 5 years ago from Yorkshire, UK

Isn't it typical of so many of us on the left that as soon as we recognise each other we start trying to sniff out ideological differences. I know very little about the politics of Plaid Cymru, and what I do know is filtered through Welsh Labour who are your opponents.

Is there anywhere I can see articles about Plaid's community based socialism?


iantoPF profile image

iantoPF 5 years ago from Sunny California Author

Hello again Charles; I had to think about your question. I know what I mean but I've been in America for over 20 years now and I don't feel adequate to speak for Plaid. So I'd like to refer you to an old friend and colleague John Dixon. He has been the national Chair of Plaid and has stood in numerous elections. I'm sure you'll find his insights enlightening and I'll let him know you might be e-mailing him.

his blog is here; http://borthlas.blogspot.com/


Charles James profile image

Charles James 5 years ago from Yorkshire, UK

Many thanks comrade!


nomoretrucks profile image

nomoretrucks 5 years ago from scotland

Noswaith da Ianto. couldnt stop reading this very interesting hub till well late and the comments too. Robert Owen is one of my heros of history. My family background for generations lived by this creed of universal benevolence, and in my twenties thought it was a weakness until realising how selfish i had become after doing financially well with my own business- it was a lonely place- two of my kids became strangers almost. Only true happiness comes from shared success. The people who had the least when i fell on my ar%e were a distinct group of socialists who gave what they had to help me. Free enterptise has its place but only seems to benefit the minority. Didnt Rockefeller die a lonely man? I am no great intellect but socialism feels right to me. Respect and blessings. Splen-digedig!


Terry.Hirneisen profile image

Terry.Hirneisen 4 years ago from Shenandoah Valley

Sorry I did a fast read. Enough that I know I want to come back and get deeper. Appreciate anyone that understands socialism. Love Bernie Sanders from Vermont.

This country is soooo far to the right and full of fear and hate. Your thoughts are refreshing.


iantoPF profile image

iantoPF 4 years ago from Sunny California Author

Thank you Terry; I appreciate you taking the time to read and comment. It did come as something of a culture shock to me when I came to America and heard such a negative view of Socialism being made. Then hearing it from people who have no idea what it's all about.

It would be very positive if we could start a debate without the fear and hate you describe.

Best Wishes.............Ianto


An AYM 4 years ago

"moral flaws include excessive individualism, competition and materialism and the exploitation of ordinary working people."

I don't believe I understand how one could think that individualisn and competition are moral flaws. I also don't understand why you have this picture of corporations as being giant beasts running renegade within society of their free will. Those corporations/private industry are only alive because we sustain it entirely, if anyone wanted to take the very brief amount of time it would take research an alternative they could.

But they don't.

Everyone gives them money because they like what they do, either that or they're simply too lazy to do otherwise. I think that's part of why Socialism has gone so terribly wrong in the hands of distorted and powerful individuals; because the same thing happens, we are lazy, but when that laziness is exercised in that very different context it comes back to bite us much much harder.


iantoPF profile image

iantoPF 4 years ago from Sunny California Author

An AYM; Thank you very much for taking the time to read and comment. I appreciate it because the direction society and the world should move is the great debate of our time.

However I have to point out that the first comment you make is out of context. I am not criticizing you or I for competition or individualism. I am saying that capitalism is guilty of *Excessive* competition and individualism. The reason this is an economic and moral flaw is that it makes no provision for those who do not do so well in the competition. It means that those who come last are reduced to no health care, poor educational opportunities, especially for their children, lack of support in misfortune. Excessive competition means that an enterprise must work to make the competitor bankrupt without thought for the pain caused to the people who rely on that competitor for their daily bread. It is a moral failing and an economic one because there is a knock on effect resulting from unemployment. Basically, if you can't afford to buy shoes the shoe factory will close down.

As for corporations, we don't have as many choices as you may think. Yes I can buy my apples from a local farmer instead of the supermarket but most people are employed by corporations. Competition means they must trim the workforce when it is viable to do so. Corporations will lay you off, corporations, like the bank, will take your house. Corporations polluted the gulf of Mexico, corporations are turning Japan into a nuclear wasteland.

When elected governments try to curb these excesses, they spend enormous amounts of money trying to spread lies about "Big Government"

Lastly, I have a far higher opinion of my fellow humans than you seem to have. We are not lazy, when given the opportunity to contribute we will.


An AYM 4 years ago

Mmm, I like your well thought out response.

I do think we have an ideological divide on our opinions of humanity, that is simply a distinction that wouldn't get hammered out through discussion.

I apologize for taking your quote to a different context, when using that quote I didn't personally see any real difference in the morality associated whether the conditional of "Excessive" was there or not.

I don't see there as being any moral imperative to help those who don't fare as well in competition. I believe that creates an environment conductive to that laziness I feel defines us.

If 100 people enter a competition for food/wealth/general prosperity and 5 people do so badly they get little to nothing but the powers that be say "That's okay, here's some prizes anyway" than the other 95 are going to view that other 5 with a slight slant of resentment. Not because they did poorly, but because they feel confused and frustrated that they had to go through that effort for the same result. Then when this repeats the 95 have only two options - decide not to go through the effort now that they know the game doesn't matter, or harbor a small seed of anger towards the 5 that get prizes anyhow. And let's not assume that all 95 are displeased about it, some people are simply okay with things, even if it's only 60 that's still a large divide within your population.

What's our assumed global population right now... almost 7 billion? At what point is it so important to sustain the least performing of our society that we'll continue to destroy all our natural resources to do so? We have too many people, we don't need to spread hugs and free bread to everyone. We need to let people die. We have to uproot forests to plant crops and pump out millions of pounds of detrimental run-off in nearly all the essentials that sustain us. Why is an underperforming humanity somehow more valuable than everything else on the planet that isn't human?

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working