I'm interested in the way certain leftists seem to think that both of the following can simultaneously be true:
1) If you make sure that people's material needs are taken care of, you can trust them with dictatorial power because they have no incentive to do wrong things
2) Billionaires are evil
1) If you make sure that people's material needs are taken care of, you can trust them with dictatorial power because they have no incentive to do wrong things
2) Billionaires are evil
Comments
what are you talking about
If you eliminate necessity, you eliminate corruption!
There shouldn't exist anything to do with $1B.
I generally trust that people won't actively choose to harm others if their needs are met, but billionaires aren't your average folks and neither are their means.
So when one suicidal man is piloting a plane of 100 into a mountain, killing that man is a crime, but also a necessity.
after all, we're talking about a world where money is still a Thing, and providing for everyone will take a fair amount of resources.
Dunbar’s number.
Let's not forget that at least three individual corporations have a higher kill count than the wildest estimate of every suspected death under every 'socialist' regime ever.
But if you think of the REAL communism, not the Russian "communism," it could work. But, as things tend to get, it's a lot of effort--a lot more than other "isms"--I would even say, unfortunately, not many people would want to put that much effort into it, sadly.
Theory and practice, and, in this case, a very heavy lifting would need to be done. The kind that is unlikely to happen. Ever.
(Oh god I'm inviting a whiplash, aren't I? *sigh*)
If they were able to fight it solo, then it WASN'T an entire WW.
If it was an entire WW, then by defn they didn't fight it solo.
No one disputes Russia bore the main weight of the Wermacht for too long.
But
Lend-Lease made Russia's fight possible (Russia didn't produce enough arms by itself to oppose Nazi Germany).
Russia didn't fight Japan – at least not before VE Day.
Make it make sense! Was this just rhetoric (that I'm overreacting to) or am I missing something.
Direct worker ownership of the means of production is also very successful.
But hey, maybe fighting by meat grinder attrition and being bailed out by America (and winter, and Germany’s horrific management of the eastern front) is what communists call winning.
But killing those people was good I guess.
FOR THE GLORY OF STALIN!
smh
The leftists you are referring to aren’t even technically leftists on top of being a tiny group of mostly young/college age group. And honestly, we want our kids to be vocal, disturbing, & in-your-face when they are in college (as every college generation behind was).
Like we have an entire political party almost exclusively devoted to making sure the rich stay rich and the poor grovel at the feet of the rich.
Those two assertions are both symptoms of what's broken, and examples of the lashing out.
Our system was gamed, over 50 years, to a new Gilded Age
/E
Having food’s not much help if it’s illegal to even EXIST.
People can absolutely be evil. David Duke is another good example; he's defined by the vile things he says and does, not how nice he is to his parents
Why don't you articulate your own understanding of what that means so that we don't have to dance around your arguments about how my understanding is technically incorrect in a particular detail
do you think that workplace unionization is also scary?
Just sum it up. Representatives? Or "everyone votes on everything"?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_confederalism
I believe this form best represents the views of standard issue socialists. There as some existing entities that follow this model to varying degrees.
What to do about the problems that will still be with us is why you wind up with vicious intra-left squabbling.
They'd have empirical proof that there won't be, but for some reason - probably to do with capitalist reactionary forces - the folks purporting to implement communist theory never manage to do it without some level of corruption
Alas, it never works out that way.
The Party hasn't had a meeting to decide whether to assign a committee to be mad at you.
I am a left leaning pragmatist. To right wingers, I'm a commie. To left wingers, I'm a heartless capitalist pig.
In reality, I'm just Joe.
Because that was a hoot.
He can't figure out that the president isn't part of the legislative branch.
But equating “material needs met” with “billionaire” is deeply silly
They have the same arguments about crime, which seems more reasonable. But they also insist rich people commit lots of crimes.
2) billionaires don’t become billionaires without exploitation and harm.