Reply #28: Production means nothing unless it produces a benefit, so benefit is the criteria and to some [View All]

the military and other such do create a benefit, which is the higher order value from which "production" is derived.

And how can private "ownership" negate socialism when private "ownership" produces nothing of benefit (or otherwise) without needed goods, resources, and services that private "ownership" did not produce.

You can own all of the ball-bearing factories in the world, but without socially produced roads and transportation and markets to get those ball-bearings to, you own something that is of limited or no value. Same thing for meat or cars or spinach. Yes, in theory, all of those SOCIAL goods and services could each one have been created and developed individually and entirely privately and without the support of ANY other (private or otherwise) goods and services, but that did not happen. With very few exceptions, everything is more or less inter-dependent, so, since you can't/don't produce the wherewithal of your own survival no matter what you are doing, and yet expect to be valued by the system in such a manner as for the social system to meet your needs, why not almost ANYONE else?