• HaSch@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Ok so first of all whatever landlords do isn’t “work”. But apart from that, the distribution of labour in a planned economy is still very much a concrete problem that has to be solved mathematically. In socialism, people will still need to work X hours a year, even if X is now determined by their mental or physical aptitude, the difficulty of the labour performed, the progress of technology, or external conditions; and this X has to be determined in the central planning agency in a calculation that cannot be circumvented by moral philosophy. I’m not saying we can do the same sort of computation for the minimum possible amount of “bad” in the world, morally speaking, but to quantify labour is possible and indeed necessary in order for scientific socialism to be realised.

    • WithoutFurtherDelay@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Nothing you’ve said here is something I was arguing against. There’s a huge difference between mathematically calculating a good labor economy and basing an entire moral system on arbitrary calculations. Labor hours are concrete, “happiness” isn’t.

      Also I agree that landlords suck and that was the point of what I was saying with the example. That a statement as nonsensical as “landlords good actually” can be justified with mathematical utilitarianism because of it’s inherently arbitrary nature