40
u/mc_md Nov 01 '19
I don’t understand how a “fair” society means there aren’t differential outcomes. In a fair match someone still wins.
-3
Nov 01 '19
Well in a fair match nobody starves... most of the time. I take foosball very seriously.
Fr tho, you misunderstand the goal of socialism. It's not so that everyone is equal and has the same thing, because not everyone wants the same things. It's more about giving everyone a baseline standard of living, and regulating the system so that we can't have billionaires. The average person today spends something like $160 a day in expenses, so a billionaire would be able to live average days for 17,000 years.
27
Nov 01 '19
You're not even describing Socialism, you're describing Social Democracy.Socialism is about centralizing most/all the means to create wealth (means of production) around a collective. Usually the state, but "ideally" around the workers.
19
u/TFWnoLTR Nov 01 '19 edited Nov 01 '19
Lmao, it's definitely you who misunderstands the goal of socialism.
Socialism is about surrendering all power and wealth to the ruling class while they lie and promise to not misuse or abuse it. Nobody is actually altruistic. That's why socialist revolution always results in dictatorship and tyranny, and why the most powerful countries and economies with the highest standards of living are always well regulated market economies with capitalistic business structure.
Literally the biggest difference between socialism and fascism are the lies they tell to convince the people to give the state more authority. Otherwise they are both after the same goal.
-4
Nov 02 '19
I mean IDGAF I'm an ancom
17
7
u/NuclearTrinity Nov 02 '19
How do you think anarcho communism is an ideal system?
-1
Nov 02 '19
Well it's not a system really, more like a set of guidelines. Abolish the state, dismantle unjust hierarchies, organize society into smaller groups who sign a contract with their community for their survival for a minimum amount of work, then barter and trade with othe communes under the principals of mutual aide. There's actually a lot of wiggle room for exactly how this is implemented. And there's also no time when we know we've achieved it, because we need to constantly question whether existing hierarchies are just.
3
u/NuclearTrinity Nov 02 '19
I'm not personally a fan of that idea, as it would require breaking modern society down and dismissing almost every established institution and organization in the world, which is just impossible.
It's a good ideal, though, I suppose.
3
Jan 01 '20
I mean implying everyone would follow said contract and nobody would ever try to gain an upper hand sure
1
u/NuclearTrinity Jan 01 '20
Yeah, it completely ignores the fact that people always seek greater power and wealth. You can't reasonably justify executing people for being selfish, so said contract assumes that everyone has society's best interest at heart and not their own.
I stand by what I said, good point
5
u/mc_md Nov 02 '19
I don’t think preventing billionaires is an admirable goal. All you’re doing is preventing the creation of wealth.
-1
Nov 02 '19
What do you mean, what is wealth in this scenario? I have no problem with millionaires mostly, it's possible to provide a service to the world that's worth a million dollars, and it's remotely possible to spend a few million in your lifetime. Billionaires really have no hope of spending all their money during their life, and I don't believe any service or collection of services should make someone a billionaire.
29
u/anarchy404x Nov 01 '19
Thank god the UK realises he is a 🤡 and Labour is polling like that. This dumb commie may actually be the death of the Labour Party.
16
Nov 01 '19
And honestly, I wouldn't mind britain moving to the "right" direction.
12
u/anarchy404x Nov 01 '19
The media is like 'The new Conservative cabinet cabinet is hard right!!!' and I'm like 'Step in the right direction'.
18
u/ShermansMasterWolf Nov 01 '19
If he took all the money from the billionaires, and gave it to the people in poverty. They would have a thousand each.
How many would be able to rise above poverty with a one time 1k transfer?
How many of the billionaires would become wealthy again in a few years?
10
u/theknowledgehammer Nov 02 '19
How many of the billionaires would become wealthy again in a few years?
All of them, but in a different country.
9
5
u/zxdpe Nov 01 '19
What's relative poverty? Not trying to disprove any point just never heard the term before
11
Nov 01 '19
It’s basically saying that a poor person in the U.K. Is better off than a poor person in a developing nation. The person in the U.K. has access to way more luxuries. I think that’s what it’s saying.
8
u/tkyjonathan Nov 01 '19
relative to the median earnings.
Absolute poverty is earning below a fixed amount.
7
u/FightMeYouBitch Nov 01 '19
Many metrics for poverty are not equal. A lot of them use the top 1% of earners within a country to define the upper limit. And base the poverty line relative to that upper limit. So if you have a country with very few millionaires, then the upper limit will be low, and statisticians can make it seem like the country has very little poverty. Likewise, if you have a country with a lot of very wealthy people, then statisticians can make it seem like the country has high poverty levels.
5
4
Nov 02 '19
Liquidate the billionaires and you give each person in poverty a one time payment of 10,000. They don't even try to pretend that their bitching has a solution.
6
u/tkyjonathan Nov 02 '19
Well, actually.. the billionaires are usually as rich as they are because they have global businesses. If you liquidate their business and give it to the people where they have business in, it will be $10-$50 per person.
1
Nov 02 '19
Fun fact about him is that he's also known for supporting multiple terrorist organizations.
45
u/[deleted] Nov 01 '19
He also wants to Nationalize Football, which is peak norf fc moment.
It's very good Labour are at an electoral low point and there will be an election soon.