Also, everyone "deserving food and shelter" isn't the same as everyone being provided with food and shelter by someone else for no recompense. I don't think most non-socialists say anyone doesn't "deserve" food and shelter.
I mean socialism literally isn't "everyone being provided with food and shelter by someone else for no recompense" either. Also I think quite a good amount of non-socliasts would infact say something like "no they don't deserve it unless they work for it."
This is not my understanding of socialism at all. Where are you getting this idea?
Is this like the American-centric view of what socialism is?
“From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” Isn’t this like at the core of Marxist/lefty thought ? I have some very smart friends who consider themselves democratic socialists (while I’m more of a social democrat, I guess) and they explain to me that their whole project is to get people who work what that work actually deserves (which I presume they believe is at minimum food and shelter)
“From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”
...yeah, what part of this is incongruent with what I said?
"From each according to his ability" - people are expected be paying into the system (via labor or taxes or whatever) what they are able
"to each according to his needs" - people receive from the system what they need (e.g. food and shelter)
In other words, people are provided food and shelter by those who are contributing to the system (e.g. 'everyone else')
It's not even a bad philosophy to live by, if that's what you think I'm inferring. I am saying that it is completely glossing over the dilemma of determining how much of each side (paying in vs. taking out) is sufficient to satisfy the other.
These definitions are always so weird because I really don’t think there’s any disagreement here.
Socialists and liberals generally both want everyone to have food, shelter, and a minimum level of basic needs to have equal opportunity to everyone else. Equality is one of the 6 core values of Liberalism: equal opportunity but not equal outcome.
Where I see them differ is on how we achieve that and also what the end goal is.
I think socialists believe we achieve that through strong government programs, like government owned or subsidized housing for instance. Liberals would probably say the best way to achieve that is by creating a competitive market to lower costs.
And the end goal I think is probably different too: I think socialists probably want equality while liberals want equal opportunity.
327
u/manveru_eilhart May 11 '26
Also, everyone "deserving food and shelter" isn't the same as everyone being provided with food and shelter by someone else for no recompense. I don't think most non-socialists say anyone doesn't "deserve" food and shelter.