Most people misunderstand what the end of private property actually entails.
Even under the most orthodox marxist socialism, you probably wouldn't lose anything to the government if you're not a shareholder of GM or owner of multiple apartment complexes or something.
There are good and bad things about capitalism, and you can argue wether a socialist society would be better or not, but I don't think we should be aiming to throw out capitalism and establish a socialist society based on a utopian image of a society. We should rather distance ourselves from the libertarian ideals about the free market and government and start using our government to fix the issues that capitalism isn't fixing and in some cases is enabling or causing, and if what we end up with is a society that looks a lot like the utopia people have dreamed about for many years and still do then so be it.
Based on the comments I've seen here and elsewhere concerning a 70% tax on super rich, I'm going to approach every conversation in the topic assuming the other person doesn't know how our progressive tax system works.
There's way too many people that think a tax rate like that would magically transform a $10mil income into $3mil the second you crossed that line
If they privately owned farms and factories that others worked on, they sure were capitalists. That's what private property means: land.
Anything that serves the revolution is moral. They don't do shit because they're trying to be good.
What the fuck are you even saying anymore?
Why does capitalism get a 'its a non-biased' pass and not Communism. For fuck's sake, the writings of Capitalism's founding fathers were core inspirations to OUR founding fathers. Our political system has capitalism intrinsically intertwined.
You cannot just isolate capitialism and NOT DO the same to Communism.
So feudalism is capitalism? Kind of a broad definition there.
Capitalism isn't solely defined by private ownership, that's an overly simplistic definition. It's specifically private ownership of the means of production, free market and free competition.
So the government owning things like infrastructure, railroads, vital services isn't any good?
Besides, these are not the only alternatives. A fundamentally unfair component of capitalism is that mere ownership of means of production - without putting in any actual work - grants the owner access to a share of what the actual workers produce using those means. An alternative to that is coops, where employees collectively own the business they're working for.
Because Capitalism doesn't deal with ideals. Just the exchange of products.
That the moral compass in communism is not good and bad. Is pro revolution and against revolution. If having women in the labor force helps the revolution they do it. But if having women at home popping babies helps the revolution they do that instead.
...you missed his point, try taking a step back and actually answering his question, and maybe you'll see what we're getting at. to say tax increases lead to communism and removal of property rights is insane, to base it off "it's mentioned in the communist manifesto" isn't too different from saying that opposing child labor is communist because it is also mentioned
Totally fine with isolating communism from the soviet or chinese governments; in theory, in a world where "true communism" worked, it would truly suck if the greatest thing you could aspire to be is a worker and not an owner
I see. It's not so much as one thing leading to another, but rather one being the pre-requisite to another in communism.
That is, once you have a progressive tax in place, you leave a door open for the next step.
I think the government should own infrastructure or allow a state-sponsored and regulated monopoly only because of the logistical problems which arise from two company's trying to share ownership of the same infrastructure. In the US, the telephone lines/towers, railroads, electrical wires etc. are typically owned by private companies or state-sanctioned monopolies like Dominion Electric
In the ideal world of Communism, you're both. Not one over the other.
Right but being an equal part owner of a factory (like a co-op) means that the ceiling is rather low for how much money you can make. In the words of Marx: "from each according to their abilities to each according to their needs". I don't want to have my needs met, I want to make a lot of money on top of that as well.
oh my fucking god, it's january and this post already is going to be the best candidate for dumbest post of the year, what the fuck
seriously just looking at this makes my head hurt
yes because back during the 1950s when America had a 90% tax rate on the rich and 70% capital gains tax Eisenhower was going around removing everybody's property rights
there has to be at least half a dozen logical fallacies in that statement alone, smh
"It's not so much one thing leading to another but once you have one thing you have the potential to gain the other"? What are you trying to say cause it sounds to me like you just contradicted yourself?
In the ideal world of Communism, you're both. Not one over the other.
I don't mean to strawman you or anything, so forgive me if I have misunderstood but what you're saying here sounds a lot like you want to have the opportunity to be better off than others in a "I have mine, don't care about theirs" sorta way?
You want power over others and thus want to subject others to your will. Because living to your needs which could mean a rising living standard isn't enough so you need to hoard more of the pie.
Big shocker, that's what he was critiquing.
Almost. I want to have the right to be better off than others, but I do still want to make sure theres a baseline of quality of life guaranteed by the government, as in a social democracy/welfare state
You're really living up to your avatar pic atm.
But that's not how it works, you taking more of the pie means you're removing it from someone else who might need it and thusly cannot meet their needs. Just because you wish for a better living standard for others doesn't mean it will come when you're taking more of the pie.
Its also a dubious lie made by people from Rockerfeller to Musk, who have all made that famous distinction and then hoarded and denied their workers decent wages, hours and futures. Your greed is exactly why Capitalism fails, because at its most simple its about getting material where they're most needed based on market forces. This means realistically they should be going to Africa and developing nations to create new middle class markets to generate more revenue but instead are hoarded to China, Europe and the US.
You are unironically part of the problem and may need to work part time retail to understand how fucked of a mental idea that is.
Even then that's not how collectivization is supposed to work under proper marxian socialism. The government doesn't take over shit, rather businesses are collectivized and taken over individually by the workers that run them. In the times that collectivization has actually happened like in Revolutionary Catalonia, the people who did own the land and businesses weren't just thrown out if they refused collectivization, they were given a share, and the chance to continue working in a similar position just at a workmen's wage rather than retaining all the profits for themselves. Some still refused at that point, and they were allowed to keep that small share and do whatever they wanted with it, but usually since they didn't cooperate with the collectivized method, the collectivized businesses didn't work with them, including those of other businesses than the original one.
The entire point of socialism isn't just "fuck the rich, we want everything you own for ourselves", it's to try and put everyone on an equal footing including those it takes from. When paired with the libertarian ideas of volunteerism that's a powerful thing. That being said I don't think just taking people's businesses and land is right, and despite its successes I don't think the system could have been kept together for too long in Revolutionary Catalonia.
"Proper Marxist Socialism". That's a good joke.
I think that some people can make more than others and we can still guarantee a baseline level of comfort. We dont have to have everyone be exactly equal in order for everyone to have their needs met.
why exactly is making the most money an important goal exactly? you've already been brainwashed by capitalism my dude
Because I want nice stuff, to take my fiancee out for nice food, and to take vacations places. More money means nicer things. It's not the money I want, it's the nice things that money can buy. Why I want money really isnt anybody's business, it's my right to make money by selling people things
You've said Communism=Totalitarianism and use a Fucking video-game that has nothing to do with Communism as an example of your theory, you've made up information that doesn't exist within the Communist Manifesto, and you believe a 70% tax rate is somehow "Communist Policy" even though it was done before back in the 50s of the US.
Its clear that you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about, and have devolved into shitposting and quick "Zinger" posts as a way to save face.
That's precisely what leftist alternatives to Capitalism aim to provide, though. Full meritocracy is incompatible with capitalism. Marx was adamantly against total equality as a political goal, instead aiming for a modernization of society that could produce enough wealth to guarantee a dignified life to everyone. Your own merit, not your birth or the expropriation of others,, would allow you to rise.
Essentially, work would not be a life-or-death obligation that consumes the majority of your life, but the opportunity to live your life to the fullest extent of your capabilities.
Yeah, I should have specified that you would simply lose the share of other people's labour you're appropriating.
Is this stupid zinger your admission that you're incapable of responding to the people calling you out?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.