Well… Fuck Systems then.
Also, not every System lets peolle die who are not considered valuable for the system.
For example:
For a liberal, Nazis are not deemed valuable for upholding a liberal democracy. Still, they are not killed based in that.
For a capitalist homeless and poor are not valuable, whereas the fear of becoming these and die is. In a Capitalist System the poor can die because it is even valuable for creating pressure to work for the capitalist.
Sadly many of these systems are interlocking. And of course capitalist liberal democracies still let people die. But not every System HAS to let people die, if they are not deemed valuable enough, and not every System values People based on their bodies. (Every System values people based on their ideology)
No, every system has to let people die if they aren’t valuable enough. Even the most generous, open-hearted system must engage, at the end of the day, in triage. Resources are inevitably limited - throwing infinite resources after low-value cases is simply not viable, and, I would argue, also not moral. What system will put equal resources towards a 110 year-old with dozens of chronic problems and a 20 year-old with potential for full recovery? Will a commune exhaust their resources on a heavily-wounded stranger when there are limited critical resources needed for members of the commune? All systems choose to spend their resources in such a way that lets some die, and others live. Systems which put emphasis on wealth may appear more brutal in this sense, but in truth, they’re just more naked as to their processes and reasoning.
I mean, unless the plan is to leave them half in the grave and ready for burial, them dying is going to be beneficial to the system which will no longer need to sustain them.
The criticism you’re looking for, I think, has more to do with profit motive and the delegation of decision-making to those who, well, profit by it - ie “We’re going to let this person die because another .01% profit this quarter will let me get a new yacht” kind of thinking
According to Vladimir Lenin, “He who does not work shall not eat” is a necessary principle under socialism, the preliminary phase of the evolution towards communist society
Soviet 1938 constitution
In the USSR work is a duty and a matter of honor for every able-bodied citizen, in accordance with the principle: “He who does not work, neither shall he eat”.
Also
Joseph Stalin had quoted Vladimir Lenin during the Soviet famine of 1932–1933 declaring: “He who does not work, neither shall he eat.”
That’s every system, though.
Well… Fuck Systems then. Also, not every System lets peolle die who are not considered valuable for the system. For example: For a liberal, Nazis are not deemed valuable for upholding a liberal democracy. Still, they are not killed based in that. For a capitalist homeless and poor are not valuable, whereas the fear of becoming these and die is. In a Capitalist System the poor can die because it is even valuable for creating pressure to work for the capitalist. Sadly many of these systems are interlocking. And of course capitalist liberal democracies still let people die. But not every System HAS to let people die, if they are not deemed valuable enough, and not every System values People based on their bodies. (Every System values people based on their ideology)
No, every system has to let people die if they aren’t valuable enough. Even the most generous, open-hearted system must engage, at the end of the day, in triage. Resources are inevitably limited - throwing infinite resources after low-value cases is simply not viable, and, I would argue, also not moral. What system will put equal resources towards a 110 year-old with dozens of chronic problems and a 20 year-old with potential for full recovery? Will a commune exhaust their resources on a heavily-wounded stranger when there are limited critical resources needed for members of the commune? All systems choose to spend their resources in such a way that lets some die, and others live. Systems which put emphasis on wealth may appear more brutal in this sense, but in truth, they’re just more naked as to their processes and reasoning.
Hm, maybe. But there is a difference between them dying being beneficial to the system or not.
I mean, unless the plan is to leave them half in the grave and ready for burial, them dying is going to be beneficial to the system which will no longer need to sustain them.
The criticism you’re looking for, I think, has more to do with profit motive and the delegation of decision-making to those who, well, profit by it - ie “We’re going to let this person die because another .01% profit this quarter will let me get a new yacht” kind of thinking
Soviet 1938 constitution
Also