Quote:
Originally Posted by KOD
Theoretically, within the perfect world of the written word, perhaps. However, in the real world of a socialistic society, all wealth is controlled by central planners, as is all workforce efforts and results. Simply stating that the "workers" own the businesses is a politically correct falsehood.............it's simply not possible. "The People's Republic" never belongs to the people, nor should it.
Socialism is a system where the need of the individual is subordinate to the well-being of the masses. Workers function to provide sustenace to the group as the individual is expected to sacrifice everything necessary for the betterment of the many.
Universal healthcare is an example of this concept as individuals must sacrifice their preferences for the good of the masses as a whole. Socialism is the only fair and equality based system ever devised. As government becomes the decision maker and distributor of needs, the masses must accept having fewer liberties to insure their common welfare.
|
There is no, nor should there be, irreconcilable contrast between the individual and the collective, between the interests of the individual person and the interests of the collective, There should be no such contrast, because collectivism, socialism, does not deny, but combines individual interests with the interests of the collective. Socialism cannot abstract itself from individual interests. Socialist society alone can most fully satisfy these personal interests. More than that; socialist society alone can firmly safeguard the interests of the individual. In this sense there is no irreconcilable contrast between "individualism" and socialism. But can we deny the contrast between classes, between the propertied class, the capitalist class, and the toiling class, the proletarian class? On the one hand we have the propertied class which owns the banks, the factories, the mines, transport etc. These people see nothing but their own interests, their striving after profits.
They do not submit to the will of the collective; they strive to subordinate every collective to their will. On the other hand we have the class of the poor, the exploited Class, which owns neither factories nor works, nor banks, which is compelled to live by selling its labor power to the capitalists and which lacks the opportunity to satisfy its most elementary requirements. How can such opposite interests and strivings be reconciled?