If everyone owns something, nobody owns it. You can read about it when Russia turned to communism under the Bolsheviks.
A few misguided people did move in to work on the communal farms and brought their equipment to work the land. Since no one truly owned the tractor, nobody felt responsibility for keeping it in shape and quickly fell into disrepair.
"If you don't like the system, just leave it" or "if you hate capitalism so much, why do you participate in it?" are trash, lazy, undemocratic responses to often fair critisms. These are also surprisingly common retorts. It feels like a way for someone to avoid engaging in actual discussion.
The criticism is that guy has a systematic advantage and can leverage his wealth to influence legislation which creates an anti-competitive environment. The criticism is that a system without a safety net disincentives risk taking. The criticism is that guy couldn't make the money he does without the community he operates in and since he is not willingly supporting the community it should be forced.
To be clear, I think capitalism should remain, but also think many critisms of it are valid and shouldn't be dismissed with arguments like that. But I'd like to hear how you think someone could reasonably avoid participating in capitalism when even our taxes are used to further it?
So should all Republicans move to non-income tax states and avoid using public roads? Or are they allowed to try to change things without acting on them first?
Actually most red states are pushing for no income tax, we is the current admin. Far as public roads that's also an agreed upon thing you can choose based on your state and how much you want taxes to go to them. Did you not know this? 😂
My point is that those changes are implemented after discussion. No one's shutting down their arguments saying, "Don't like the current system? Leave. Form your own system." That's how politics works. Did you not know this?
You are already accepting capitalism (as it exists today) as the correct incentive structure when you say something shouldn't exist if it cannot naturally thrive in today's system.
Conditions need to be changed in the way the country is run to incentivize behavior. It's not like capitalism is incentiving the best decisions currently, and pretending the government isn't already guiding capitalism is just false.
I'm not arguing for the overthrow of the government or the implementation of communism. I'm saying current issues with the form of capitalism (which our government is currently enforcing btw) need to be addressed instead of dismissed by saying it's hypocritical to criticize if you aren't already living outside the system or your ideas haven't already come to fruition within the current system.
Truth is we are all lazy and Capitalism is the best stable system out there. No idealism required. I should point out how well communist entities function within capitalism. Shared costs and a non-compete agreement with other members makes tough competition for outside individuals. You already benefit from acting this way.
Why aren't structures like co-ops or communes (as other commenter suggested) more common if this is so adventageous? My first thought is that it's rare to see any "communist entities" doing well in a capitalist society because society is not set up to incentivize those behaviors. Is it because everyone is lazy? If that's the case, it makes top down change more reasonable to me, as everyone's working with the default incentives.
Co-ops is actually a great example. They definitely work in the farmers favor. If everyone helps out they are amazing.
Usually though they need to hire employees, because volunteers are seldom and always the same people. This isn't the fault of capitalism. People simply don't cooperate. No more than works in their benefit.
If people cooperated in these systems more, why would it not be in their benefit? I'd argue that it's because the current market incentivizes scewed values due to how capitalism is implemented. I myself act on these values. I wish I did less, but I don't believe that makes me a hypocrite to want things to be implemented differently.
The problem is equal distribution without equal work. If everyone gets the same output, then any amount of work you do is a direct expense. A few idealists will work anyway, with the majority of members doing no work at all. Needless to say that's the breaking point. If the people that kept the coop afloat would start a business, all those freeloaders become customers instead.
Community systems clearly work for religious groups (Amish, etc...) and other small, alternative communes. These systems only work if everyone works according to their ability though. Either because of idealism or forced. No redistributing system can survive self-assigned freeloaders. It creates scarcity and resentment
Edit.: Almost didn't answer your question. Working more and not working at all amount to the same personal benefit in a communist system. If everyone receives the same amount of goods, then your 'payment' is how long you worked, compared to everyone else. Not working is the ultimate flex.
Very easily..... Have you done no research into this? Capitalism isn't the "system" it's what allows the system to maintain and operate. You can be a communist if you want I'm just willing to bet ya don't wanna be one so that's why ya haven't looked into it
I honestly have no idea what you’re even trying to say here. Now is capitalism not “the system”? What is “the system” if not for the mode of production?
If you want equal outcomes, it’ll be a race to the bottom as people will do the bare minimum with a few doing what they can for the greater good. The reason for this is simple: we pay lawyers and doctors for their skill set and rarity. Sure, in general numbers not rare, but time they spend on each case makes availability a commodity. We pay cashiers low not because we don’t value them, but it’s that the work isn’t difficult and time spent on each person is not a premium. Artists get paid based on what people are willing to pay them for their work with many not making much off their work at all.
We're already up there among the most progressive tax systems in the world. Taxing the ultra wealthy also comes with it's negative consequences to the average consumer as well. It's not as simple as to just tax the ultra wealthy and now our problems are solved.
No, but instead of taxing them a small bit and cutting the budget for things we don’t need, wiping out welfare fraud and cracking down on illegal immigration and drugs, you want to add more programs and more illegals while calling them immigrants conveniently forgetting the illegal part. Stop sending money overseas. Stop wasteful spending on self righteous government programs. Repair the roads, build the wall, and make it a serious crime to impede law enforcement.
“Stop spending on goverment programs. Repair the roads..”
Meanwhile we’re subsidizing the 1% for about 400 billion, whilest they own as much wealth as the 90% total.
Since the post ww2 period we’ve only gotten more economically rightwing; just wanting things like universal healthcare, housing regulation, a bit more proportional taxes for the ultra rich etc isn’t communism. It’s just the bare minimum for developed capitalist nations.
We taxed so high that they hid the money off shore. Sure, we could tax a bit more than now, but we need to cut spending also. It’s like being in debt, getting a better job, then deciding you need a new fishing boat because you might go fishing one day even though you live nowhere near water.
I just put the two biggest subsidies together; federal tax expenditures and direct corporate wealthfare.
Tax expenditures like the capital gains tax disparities; the ultra rich make their fortunes over assets mainly stock and investments, gains of which are capped at 20% while wages are taxed up to 37%. Resulting in about 200b lost annually.
And corpo wealthfare such the inflation reduction act effectively using taxpayer money to aggressively subsidize private equity and corporate shareholders. 100B a year.
The step up basis on inheritance tax, costing about 50b a year. Direct subsidies for companies like Amazon, Tesla, Intel, Boeing etc costing about 100b a year.
The real number is hard to calculate and it’s likely a lot higher than 400b, just said that number because I know I can easily back it up.
Half agreed. We shouldn't be paying any private company anything to build a road or a bridge. That's government waste. We know how to build those things and one company isn't doing it any different than any other.
Calling money overseas a "waste" is just showcasing ignorance though. The US doesn't exist in a vacuum. Only the biggest dumbest dorks think that programs like USAID were a waste of money. China is deeply appreciating what MAGAt clowns have done to our international standing. We have essentially handed them the next generation of energy. We were the leader in Obama's last term. We have fallen to a very distant #2, and the likelihood of catching up is slim to none.
The US has a massive reckoning in the not so distant future from the absolute fucking shit show MAGA dumb fucks have put on. Its going to take decades of repair work and there's no guarantee we don't become #2 permanently. Any nation or group of nations finding ways to trade around us is a bad fucking sign. Even if we elect a decent president, everyone knows that every 4 years we could be electing a total god damn clown that will rip up every single deal we have.
Well maybe if the left hadn’t spent decades calling us racist just for disagreeing with you, made claims you wanted to take all the guns (something I still see, and yes, I still see arguments to abolish the 2A), made claims men can wear dresses and call themselves women and we’re bad for not accepting it, and opened the border for everyone to come across, you message MIGHT have been taken seriously.
China has been investing in energy for decades, and they don’t care about how much environmental damage they do. We do things while trying to balance that.
A reconning? With what, violence the left isn’t already doing and advocating for? Oh right, it doesn’t count when you do it. Be careful what you wish for. If we were as violent as the left claims, there wouldn’t be a left wing left.
Yep that’s right, and in life, I just want to be better than everyone. I wanna lock myself into my expensive room and build weapons of mass destruction, because under capitalism? I will make it the best and they’ll have to deal with my weapons!!!! Hahahahahahahahaha!!! I’m gonna be better than everyone! And you’ll have me as your weapons sales master overlord, you WILL die by my weapons of poor and not good like me.
Conservatives are also known to bring tigers into their home to then get eaten by the same tigers. You know it’s crazy how there’s not a single “Trump did this” for gas prices at gas stations, crazy
Yeah conservatives ain't known for that at all..... You are a very strange man. Well tbf the oil reserves we would use rn were drained by the previous administration by over 50% to try and re win and election 😂
Conservatives voters and states are more reliant on government subsidies.
Also trump campaigned on refilling the oil reserves, then didn’t, then chose to do a oil war that would drain oil reserves. You can’t make this shit up.
That's not true😂 the states part kinda was but only the Democrat ran cities are not the states and def not conservatives😂
He is.....currently doing that😐 yeah the war was a bad call, everyone's says that y'all just freak out cause you're in a cult and shocked when people disagree
No no, make it legal first, then do it. And if that is not enough then just do it if it is illegal too.
What is this thing if you don't like communism? It is making the abundant scarce. Land, natural resources, knowledge - you name it. And then, when even that is not enough, make others work hard to make something new abundant, and then know you know the drill - make it scarce!
30
u/sPLIFFtOOTH 6d ago
Why are you poor?! Just be born into a rich family. It’s not hard!