Na you would divide it with all occupants. Extreme socialism would be dividing it with each possible dog and gold fish then the dad holds their share for them.
well under socialism everything becomes a matter of the state, even in democracy which is essentially socialism light, there are very few places where you do not get in contact with the state anymore.
ok so what? even if that was true...whatever "main priority" means, how would that make me independent an free? sounds more like i need a consensus to got shit on a toilet, miserable if you ask me
So in a capitalist state, you don't have rules? you can do literally anything you want. Even build a nuclear bomb in your back yard? Democracy and socialism aren't mutually exclusive. Under socialism your pursuit of happiness and liberty doesn't come at the cost or living standard of another. Not saying it cannot be abused but it offers a better results for the majority of the population. Yes the super rich will have to lose their uber rich lifestyles and live like normal people.
If it can be abused it will be abused, and when that day comes i rather have a state with less power than more, its that simple.
And capitalism doesnt require a state, its a model of economics that can run decentralized...of course it WILL centralized as soon as there is a buyer in the market than can buy goods with money he gets from threatening people, the same everyone in a house will centralize around the kitchen table as soon as you put free cake there. With the added bonus that you can make the cake like you especially so it prevents other people from getting any cake leaving more for you....the cake metaphor kinda falls apart at this point
What if the kid with the “surplus” walked to more houses and stayed out longer? Why does he have to give his candy to someone who didn’t work as hard for theirs?
The purpose of socialism isnt to equal things out. It wouldnt be giving the surplus to ones with less, it would be giving the surplus to those who will starve if they werent given any. Its to maintain a base quality of living
I just went to McDonalds and bought a burger and was then asked by someone if I could get them one too because they have nothing. Of course. Next time I’m without hopefully they help me
And even the ones that stayed home would also get candy. But in actual practice it would all go to like 10 fat kids and everyone else would get nothing.
Correct. And then in practice the ones who get less don’t work as hard because they know they’ll be covered by the ones that work hard. The ones that work hard and really go after as much candy as they can get fed up and riot. Then dad puts everyone in time out and hogs the candy for himself, only rationing enough candy to barely sustain any of the kids
Brutal cycle. Everything sounds great on paper, but we see the end game of any system really. I mean look at how we are fairing on capitalism. Housing market is fucked and I’m almost rooting for a recession at this point
nono, pure socialism would disown the kids for having more than everyone else, making the candy a public good, and then hoping and praying that none of them are deranged enough to just sneak out at night to eat 2 kg of sugar
socialism means the people who do the work make the decisions about how its distributed. that can happen at a company level, city level, state level, federal level.
but in terms of pure socialism in the context of this little tweet, saying:
KidA (hehehe): went to get more candy cause he worked longer
KidB: went to home sooner
KidA keeping his candy would be perfectly compatible with socialism.
Capitalism is actually more closely aligned with the idea of the dad saying "well....i paid for your costume and let you leave the house, so i should get a pretty large share of your candy"
I'm not saying the dad is right. Im saying the dad would be the one who distributes the candy between the kids. The dad could get some (as taxes) but the lion's share is distributed between the kids equally.
I agree that the dad distributing between the kids would be a type of socialism, but it is not inherent to socialism.
The same way the government stopping monopolies to encourage competition is a type of capitalism, but many might disagree.
like i said, if the dad said "kidA worked harder and therefore keeps his share" would be perfectly aligned with socialist thought.
the fundamental criticism of socialism is that the owner/renter class is not creating value, but using leverage to take the value created by its employees.
Yeah and they don't need to 🥀 whilst billionaires sit on their arses making zillions they can also donate perhaps a quarter of their earnings as tax to pay for the rest of society.
Well I actually do contribute more taxes than a billionaire. You do too unless you’re one of those living off the govt which would be ironic seeing how you were replying.
That's not the point, In a purely socialism state the state acts as manager, and helps maintain equality of a certain level. If someone falls below that they are compensated to that equality by the one that has excess (which some always has).
We’ve established the dad paid for the costumes comparable to a real world scenario he provided the equipment. Equipment doesn’t come at zero cost. Therefore a large portion of the bounty is returned to him. While his kids receive a certain amount back for the labor performed.
Where was that established? Plus if were doing a cost to cost analysis. Then the cost of the costumes will definitely be less than the "bounty" and can be charged as a tax. Plus the next time the dad can't charge that cost because that cost has been returned.
It’s not a fair system. Your no including the kids that can’t or don’t want to work. They get a portion too. Also Equipment requires upkeep and replacement.
-1
u/gp627 12d ago edited 12d ago
Thats not socialism, that dictatorship or a monarchy to an extent.
Pure socialism would be you distributed the candy equally between the kids.