3 ms·
Socialism = communism. I won't into details, it is easily searchable, many big proponents of those systems said so themselves. > Very very few people with weal
by proc0 5y ago
Socialism = communism. I won't into details, it is easily searchable, many big proponents of those systems said so themselves.
> Very very few people with wealth support ditching the capitalist system.
I also agree with this... they want capitalism, FOR THEMSELVES ONLY. In order to achieve that, they promote socialism/communism for everyone else. This is achieved by imposing regulations and taxes on small businesses, effectively crippling them, while the large corporations enjoy all the loopholes and benefits of a global market.
In order to fix capitalism, it must work for everybody equally. No bailouts, for starters, and you still need regulations to avoid the big guy from completely dominating the game. Redistribution of wealth, by definition requires centralization of resources. Resources (money, assets, etc) must flow towards a single point, and then flow back to a different location... this is a HUGE point of failure, that can be easily controlled and corrupted. The alternative is to do the opposite, and decentralize resources as much as possible.
- imtringued 5y agoOk, here is a starting point: https://youtu.be/TwlvEKxbdVo https://youtu.be/TwlvEKxbdVo
- proc0 5y agoWatched it. Thanks for sharing. I just disagree that publicly owned means what it's supposed to mean. The public cannot own anything as it is not an individual. Someone else has to manage what is collectively owned, and these individuals that represent the public, effectively become the rich people that so many say are the problem with capitalism. In other words, while I agree that monopolizing land and resources is a problem, making these resources public is actually exacerbating the problem because it further concentrates the power and wealth into the hands of even fewer number of individuals. It goes from a thousands of rich people owning things, to the government "publicly owning" it, except we're in fact talking about a handful of politicians controlling all of that wealth. Europe takes this approach much more than America, where government is not trusted, but I think history is very clear as to which place has had the most problems with government abuse of power. Europe was a mess in the 20th century, while America grew to a super power, and I firmly believe this is because of the distrust in government. Again I don't know what is the best solution to fix a handful of rich people owning the majority of wealth, but it is definitely not further concentrating that wealth into an even smaller number of individuals that are notorious for lying and manipulating the public (politicians). Trusting politicians is incredibly naive, and at the moment it seems the best solutions involve voting for those people that can prove they will use the power to SHRINK government, such that wealth returns back to the rest of population (but not via public ownership which is really politicians playing the role of the rich people).
- fourtrees 5y agoMaybe it's time to bring Georgism back into the conversation.