Why Not Socialism? The Camping Trip

Every person deserves the right to experience a sense of community amongst people who share a common characteristic. A sense of fellowship amongst similar people allows a person to become more comfortable with who they are through interactions with others who are going through—or have gone through—the same triumphs or hardships. Without this feeling of belonging, one could be driven into insanity. Anxiety due to isolation and desolation could run rampant through a person’s mind because of the loneliness that comes with a lack of community—making it an essential part of a humanhood. By definition however, community invites inimitability. Community can be defined as a group of unique individuals with shared characteristics. From that a

Cohen presents to his reader the thought experiment of a camping trip where everyone is thought to have to put in the same work for all to prosper. Cohen wants to minimize the social and natural lotteries in this society, promoting more equal playing field for all. There will be an equality of opportunity in the socialist society, allowing for people to have reasonable alternatives, and the ability to have freedom through having money. It will not be pure equality, as some people will have more valuable talents than others, but it will be much better than capitalism. The idea of socialism will give people true freedom, and allow for them not to be exploited as they are being under capitalism. With people not being exploited as they were under capitalism, they are therefore, more free under socialism than under

After finishing “The Abundant Community,” I was relieved that I no longer needed to read this long winded book that could have been summarized into a pamphlet. Do not get me wrong, I like some of the ideas that were presented such as; trust, friendship, and communal pride. However, on the other side of the coin there is the consumer way of life were we are in debt, slaves to the system, and are lazy. I did not like how the authors had a very bias way of looking at the two different ways of life. Especially since I lean towards the consumer way, but I do try and balance the two.

Often times in liberal societies the wealthy take all of the money, leaving the middle class and the poor with nothing. The text chosen for source one emphasizes the fact that the wealthy and corporate elite need to take care of the poor, that it is their responsibility to ensure the common good is being met. It explains how higher classes have a collective obligation to help those who are in need. This idea corresponds with having a collective responsibility; a strong principle of collectivism. The ideas given in the text are collectivist ideas, describing how it is a responsibility of the rich to work for the common good, not just their own good. This mimics another principle of collectivism: collective interest. The author of the source does not explain the ridding of the social classes, but they outline the ideas of the upper class making sure that classes lower than them are being taken care of. The source does not describe government involvement, which is why the source mirrors the ideas of Robert Owen and Utopian Socialism. Owen believed that it was the factory owners job to take sure that their workers were treated with proper care and consideration. This puts an emphasis on a great responsibility of the rich working towards the collective good, just as the source described above. In contrast, many capitalists would likely disagree with the notion, because it puts restraints on the economic freedoms they hold so dearly. Capitalists believe in pursuing your self

market protections and economic safety nets provided by socialist policies make for a better quality of life for the average person. Corporate executives and wealthy stockholders, free of limitations and consequences from their actions make economic decisions that act on the lives of millions of people (Democratic Socialists of America 1). Socialist policy can give more control over what is done with resources and money. Democratic socialists believe “social and economic decisions should be made by those whom they most affect” (Democratic Socialists of America 1). Many socialists advocate for concepts such as worker-owned cooperatives or publicly owned enterprises that are run by workers and representatives of consumers. “Under socialism, the means of production are not privately owned, and one of socialism's defining features is the role the government plays in controlling the means of production by having a centrally planned economy” (“Preface to ‘What Are Some Concerns About Capitalism’” 1). The power of workplace unions has diminished in recent times and with that workers may not have much control over how they are employed. “The government could use regulations and tax incentives to encourage companies to act in the public interest and outlaw destructive activities such as exporting jobs to low-wage countries and polluting our environment” (Democratic Socialists of America

Therefore, it can be simplified down to this: the proletariat is always working not for himself but for the bourgeoisie in order to survive, producing products that will not only be taken away from them but decrease their human value as well. If one is to assign a monetary value to a proletariat’s life, for example a hundred dollars, each time the proletariat works, a dollar will be decreased from his total value and in the end he is basically left with nothing. However, since the bourgeoisie is the capitalist, he gains from the products produced by the proletariat and increases his own wealth as well. This inequality is why Marx believes there should be a classless society because the bourgeoisie will continue to exploit the hard working proletariats until they void themselves of any human value. It is unfair to have a minority ruling wealthy class over a majority class of working laborers. However, Davis and Moore disagree with how it is unfair to have a wealthy class ruling over the working class.

This is false, while everyone has certain inalienable rights, your rights end where mine begin. Socialism forces some to provide a service to another individual against another person's will. Capitalism on the other hand forces trade. An individual must provide a good or service to receive a good or service. Making it so everyone receives the same amount, and not dependent on how hard

Socialism, in which government manages public programs, has led to a community with no incentive to work. Take for example communities in a case study in the United Kingdom which has zero people employed and in some cases there are three generations of those on welfare within a household (Burke 2014). Likewise, the wealthy created by a capitalist society, in which business is the driving factor, pass down wealth to their children. That child can then live a lazy self-seeking life for he already has what he needs. These systems have created citizen that will no long contribute. This provides no economic justice to the middle class who are still required to work hard and subsidize others. Additionally, communist, in which government redistributes wealth, possess no need to put forth effort, for regardless of my work, I will receive the same as everyone else. These forms of government place need on government or the individual and not the community in which we function. Placing greater influence on the individual has led toward self-centered and power seeking people which provide not benefit to society (Burke

Benjamin Cardozo has a strong argumentative essay against the idea of altruism. Cardozo’s central claim is if people allow altruism to be practiced in government then they will lose their individualism and their government would eventually collapse. To being his article Cardozo explains how the lower class will always dislike the upper class and that is the reason altruism has been a topic of discussion for centuries. Cardozo then proceeds to explain how the world is driven by self interest. The reason things get accomplished by people is for the reason of self interest. Cardozo explains that altruism would kill the idea of self interest and people would be less likely to be productive. Next Cardozo describes how altruism would make all people poor which would give the illusion that no one was actually poor. Cardozo then goes on to ask the question of how altruism

Communitarianism focuses on a theory that seeks to bring economic justice through equality (MacKinnon & Fiala 2015). People love their community and are more willing to serve it then to serve others they do not identify with. Communitarianism also states that social justice may vary from group to group due to tradition and culture (MacKinnon & Fiala 2015). People find their identity in community and it influences relationships, aspirations and history forming a “community of memories” (Phillips 2014) which causes a community to form its own ideals.

A community is established when more than two people share the same values and through time this personal connection evolves into a fellowship governed by rituals, traditions, and a particular form of communication that when taken together makes a group of individuals whether living in a specific geographical area or connected by ideals so distinct that their distinguishing marks allow them to stand out from among the crowd. They do not just believe in something like an organization but they need each other to survive and thrive. A good example is the Old Order Amish Mennonite community wherein the community serves as source of identity, strength and provides the reason why they should sustain the community’s way of life.

Community is very important and has many factors like kinship, unity, and identity. Community helps society because it creates solutions, provides security and reveals dedication. It discovers truthfulness. Communities are part of everyday life and have positive affects on its members.

The aim of the book is…to diagnose certain tendencies in modern society…and to indicate how the quality of life might be changed radically by the development of a new sense of community (Kaufmann, in Buber, 1970, p. 38).

Throughout my life, I have been privileged to know a strong sense of community. My understanding of community has been carved out and shaped by each community that I have been a part of and the subsequent life experiences that I have had by being a part of these communities. To me, community means a sense of belonging with people who have some capacity of like-mindedness. When you belong to a community, you feel like a piece of a larger puzzle that comes together to create a whole. Each community you belong to both influences you, and is influenced by you. Moreover, your belonging to a community generates a sense of unity and shares a common goal, value, or outlook.

Our country clothed in nobility based on the principle of individuality cannot be compromised by socialism and collectivism. Capitalism endured the only social system in which the court uphold the principles of objective law. Further, it is the only social system in which the government protects individual rights including property rights. This system in which people can act fully according to their own judgment and thus live fully as human beings. The system also based on inalienable rights where a man/woman is free to pursuit his/her own happiness. In a laissez-faire system citizens have the opportunity to achieve and have the choice to laziness. And if a person chooses to live and is capable of supporting himself, he/she has a moral responsibility to do so; if he/she refuses to support himself/herself and, instead, steals, begs, or seeks handouts, he/she is acting parasitically and immorally. The greatness of capitalism leaves each individual free to think, work, and make as much money as he/she is willing and able to earn. No other social system on earth does this. In a capitalist society, if a poor person wants to work his/her way out of poverty – as countless poor people have done – he/she is fully free to do so. However; if he/she doesn’t want to, he/she doesn’t have to; the choice is his/her to make, and no one can force him/her one way or the other. Some people are not concerned with being wealthy, but this does not make them immoral. While a writer or a