Quote: (09-24-2015 11:55 PM)chagataev Wrote:
Absolute material equality is not a necessary goal of socialism. Plenty of mainstream facets of the civilized world like social security, universal education, labor laws, 40-hour work weeks, aid to the disabled among other things were brought about in part through socialist agitation, and all were decried by the reactionaries of their day as the greatest of socialist evils.
They are evil. They were evil then and they're evil now. And 40 hour work weeks are a result of the capital accumulation following the industrial revolution and the age of capitalism, not a result of legislation. Legislators can only get away with things like 40 hour work weeks and abolition of child labour once those things are happening by default anyway. Imposing them before the capital exists to support them is to impose starvation on people.
Quote: (09-24-2015 11:55 PM)chagataev Wrote:
Socialism is also perfectly capable of recognizing and embracing natural differences among people in terms of ability and talent. Maybe some strains reject it but it's not an axiom of socialism that people must be regarded as uniform in intelligence, ability or anything else. This is an old and lazy straw man.
That's some serious true believer talk. Socialism has always been about "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need". So sure, you can have plenty of ability and talent, but you'll be punished for it by parasitism, and by extension, the more of a useless urchin you are the more you're allowed to parasitize others. You won't receive the personal benefits of intelligence and ability and industry like you would under capitalism.
Quote: (09-24-2015 10:47 PM)Wutang Wrote:
What exactly should be due to a person by virtue of him being a human being and what should only be due to him based on his ability?
Nothing is 'due' to anyone, since 'due' as far a 'welfare' is concerned, simply means 'third party robbery'. This robbery is a result of democratic constitutions, whereby one faction (the political class) trades 'loot for power' with another faction (the parasite class). It is not a result of any objective moral reasons.
Welfare is enormously destructive to human societies long-term, and it reverses evolution. The 'heartless' attitude that people should be required to sink or swim is only heartless to the short sighted. Viewed long term, it is an act of compassion to future generations.
In terms of charity (i.e. 'voluntary welfare payments'), these are often beneficial to the providers. The simplest example is community 'tit for tat'. If you rescue someone from a terrible position, they feel indebted to you, and will likely help you if you fall in dire straights yourself (and if they don't their reputation will be damaged).
Also families have an in-built genetic incentive to rescue family members who fall in dire straights.
Finally there is a sexual selection aspect. It is well known that 'pro social' behaviour is considered attractive by women. The reason for this is simple: if a man is so strong, or has so much surplus resources, that he can comfortably spend energy and resources to help others (with no benefit to himself), that evidences his genetic quality. A stupid, lazy, weak, untalented man is unable to do such a thing - it is an ability reserved to superior men who can produce well in excess of their own requirements. This is the reason why rescuing a child from a river is a false example of 'pure selflessness'. A man who successfully rescues a child from a river receives a massive boost in reputation in his community, proves his physical strength and bravery, and receives increased preference from women as a result.