Geez dude, you are getting better at making your argument.
;)
In the past you said something to the effect that communism and capitalism can not coexist. Do you still hold that position?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Geez dude, you are getting better at making your argument.
;)
In the past you said something to the effect that communism and capitalism can not coexist. Do you still hold that position?
They are exclusive of each other, if i have no money to pay, i cant exist in a crapitalust town.
Without submitting to exploitation by working for less value than my labor creates.
Maybe you are just more open to where i am coming from.
How do you see them as completely exclusive. I mean even in capitalist towns, they take taxes from the workers and provide products for those that do not have money to pay. The welfare state has been up and running for decades, how do you see these not being a mix of capitalism and communism?
The reason I ask is I see a split in the population. Those that have ability, will choose the path that rewards ability. Those that have needs, will choose the path that rewards needs.
I don't see the path of needs being viable, as it just ends up in a big pool of need. I am not asking you to agree with that assumption, but just that you do see it as a possibility, and what are your thoughts on it.
Taking taxes for welfare isnt crapitalism, its socialism.
Were it up to the crapitalusts they would make you work for everything.
Absent the making part that isnt all bad.
Nobody should be a bum, imo.
I agree that the bums would end up sucking up enough to sink the ship.
This book goes into the details.
Without automation the bums would likely upset my apple cart, too.
Engineering the population will be important.
Many people on welfare today would be shamed into contributing.
Today there are barriers to working, papers, nairu, some people just arent up to the daily grind of a job, but would work, if only to escape the house, if there was a place they could go chip in on a voluntary basis.
People want to work, but they dont want to shave, spend their wages on clothes, kiss ass on some idiot, etc.
Im betting i can make my proposal fly with the right resources.
With enough people aware that they have the power to monkey wrench this bankster dystopia, it will be as easy as continuing to work while refusing to pay.
We have a bit of ambiguity in the term of socialism, one being a ideology, the other being the act of making something social, or distributing it socially, another wrapped up in social authority, another lending to social objectivity. But, for now, lets set that aside.
Also let's set aside the 'taking' part of taxation and see that you do agree about distribution. I think you can see it is a mixed system. I don't think either of us would like the system as a whole due to various reasons. One that bothers me is that the system tends to be a centrist position.
Why do you see social engineering as moral?
The rest of your comment doesn't really address the the question I was attempting to ask, and I am interested in your thoughts on it. I will try it in a different way.
If people of ability like the rewards of voluntary system X, and people of need like the rewards of voluntary system Y, how is system Y going to be anything but a system filled with need? You mention the right resources, but the need is going to be large, and most of the people of ability, and therefore much of the generated resources are going to be in system X.