Socialism has an emotional appeal. The Utopian society envisioned by socialist is one in which resources are shared more evenly. The extreme view would be that all resources are shared exactly even. In such a world no one person would possess any more resources than any other person… even the king. The extreme opposite is how I think socialists see capitalists. In this world all resources are controlled by a few while the rest must become their slaves in order to partake in life giving resources such as food and housing.
I’ve yet to encounter a socialist that thinks the extreme view of socialism should exist. But at the same time I’ve yet to meet a socialist that doesn’t think we are headed toward the other extreme. The question being answered in our current elections, then, is just where between these two extremes should a society exist? But while this question is the one that our society seems to be attempting to answer, it, in the end, is the wrong question.
The reality is that things are never quite so simple as the divvying up of resources. There are many more factors in play than who ought to get what? These factors can all be summed up under the heading of “The Condition of Man”. Under this heading are factors such as emotion, greed, laziness and morality… to name a few. Ignoring these factors, or rejecting that there is a higher order through which these factors must be seen, will end in convoluted economic policies that will, in the end, determine who gets the larger share of resources rather than if they will be shared evenly.