I'm running into problems in some of the right-wing groups I'm in just trying to find out exactly how communist each person is within the group. The problem is that right-wing people tend to outright reject communism at face-value but then right-wing people start advocating for resource redistribution policies that are simply "communist-light".
What is everyone's idea of some sort of "minimum" access to resources everyone should have?
If I owned all the resources in society. All the land. All the equipment. Everything. You would not be able to get any food without trespassing on my land which is a violation of my private property. If you followed private property laws then you would get 0 resources. I could pay you some of those resources in exchange for some sort of "labor". Perhaps, I find your daughter cute so I pay her resources in exchange for sex but perhaps I don't like you at all so I decide to pay you 0 resources. Without any resources, you will die. Is this right? Is it right that I can use the fact I own all the resources to "force" others into doing what I want them to do "labor, including prostitution" or that I can outright refuse to employ someone if I don't like them such that they would have 0 resources?
At a philosophical level, is the above "ok" to people? If it isn't okay to people, then what is the minimum situation any individual should be allowed in society? Does every person have a right to work? Does every person have a right to certain kinds of work (not prostitution but manual labor is fine for example)? Does every person have a right to a certain amount of resources given the work they do?
A lot of people don't want to tackle the above hypothetical because most people say the above hypothetical is unreasonable. But, is it? It's going to be coming up soon. ESG metrics, digital IDs, etc... If you don't do what you're told, you want have access to resources. Many on here believe this is wrong BUT who is telling you how you have to behave? The owners of capital. If all owners of resources got together and said they only will give jobs in exchange for resources to people who met certain characteristics, why is that something that isn't allowed? If you truly believe that people don't have a right to the resources other people own then why can't the owners of resources simply decline to give their resources to other people if they don't want to? Otherwise, what you're suggesting is that everyone should have a right to earn resources from those who have capital. If that's what you believe then what are the parameters of this guarantee on other people's resources? How communist are you?
I guess one way of describing what I'm asking is "what sort of things in life should every person be guaranteed"?
It's a mistake to believe that a piece of paper gives ownership of anything to anyone. Its the promise of FORCE behind that piece of paper that gives it validity.
If some guy goes to me, says he owns my home and to live in it I'll need to work for him and he'll give me more benefits if he can fuck my daughter but I know it's just him, I'll laugh as I'm digging a ditch if he didn't run away after the first fuck off.
The same principle applies to the world, if you are shown not to have the force and/or will to back up your words, then any claims to ownership are equally empty. It's why Trump had 4 years of glorious peace and Biden has more blood on his hands than a emo convention. Communism, capitalism, feudalism doesn't matter when I can hit you over the head and take it without repercussions.
People, especially, women forget that the government is violence. They think that the government keeps the peace, and therefore their security, but it's the violence that does that. "Nice" sounding government policies are not. They are an application of violence to social control.
This is actually the fascinating implication with the entire Negan plotline in TWD.
Negan's entire operation represents what is essentially a centralized government (albeit, one that's essentially a pure dictatorship), maintaining its existence, validity, security, and relevance through more desperate means of force.
And in many ways it is not too dissimilar to an out of control government like today's federal one. Where citizens have their power, resources, and voice stripped away bit by bit by those who are really running the show.
And conversely, you see the challenge other groups and settlements had in trying not to slip into similarly despotic feudalistic states.
I watched a bit of Walking Dead, but I haven't got as far as you talk about yet.
Turn back now. It's not worth it.
Well I didn't say I'm going forward. I don't think it's really my thing. It has something of a horror bent in addition to the sci fi. I'm not a horror fan.
I can't speak for the last season (haven't seen it yet, been busy), but I thought it was reasonably decent up until the Whisperers. Certainly better than the hilarious dumpster fire that is Fear the Walking Dead.
Oh, doh. I'm glad I probably kept any spoilers to a minimum then.
None of what I skimmed made any sense so lallalalalallalalalalalaa
“When you vote, you are exercising political authority, you're using force. And force, my friends, is violence. The supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived.”
I previously thought was anti-communist but now I realized I'm just anti-gay and pro White and anti-women's rights. But most of the people who support degeneracy and anti-Whiteism and women having rights are also commies so I'm default against them.
There are tiny minuscule minority of based tankies out there who basically agree with islam on the homo question, just for completely different reasons. They might as well not exist in terms of public presence.
There was a question on gab about what tax rate you would accept in a hypothetical White ethno-state and I was the only one that answered 100%.
Your questions are irrelevant because anyone could make up hypothetical situations that make one position or another look bad. The purpose of political power is to help your friends and harm your enemies, not uphold any set of abstract "principles" that just leaves you vulnerable to subversion. If redistribution by force supports good people and harms bad people why would anyone be against it?
This is actually the conclusion I came to on my own also. All that matters is promoting a society of good people like-minded to you and eliminating bad people who are not like you. How you redistribute resources and the rules of your society don't actually matter in the end.
any form of government/economic structure is more tolerable when you don't have to live with niggers and kikes in the same system, social/health safety nets would not work in a multiracial society, especially when one race is genetically proned to use disproportional amount of supports than they paid in
I'd generally agree with this. Especially since some situations call for different kinds of solutions and response from a solid and cohesive society. (And no, I am in no way referring to the kind of fakeass shit being pushed by today's globalist WEF faggots)
How the fuck would that work? This must have been about capital gains taxes for wealthy individuals or something. Unless your goal isn't a sustainable society but simply taking what you need from bad people and letting them die...
Humans are generally bad, but can be pushed to be good. No matter what friend-enemy distinction you make, or moral system you come up with, any society is going to be made up of "good" and "bad" people, along with people who may shift from one status to another over the course of their life. Morality, shame, laws and the enforcement of laws by the state are mainly needed to scare bad people or potentially bad people into acting right, while still contributing and participating in society. It's unpleasant to consider, but a lot of the wheels of society are operated by bad people. Trying to constantly remove bad people would have the same result as a leftist purity spiral and lead to everything collapsing. Instead they just need to be "whipped" and kept in line to keep the machine going smoothly.
(But that does not preclude something like ESG or China's social credit score, where your friends and people who do what you want get rewarded more than the bad people who might help your enemies.)
Not OP, but I can see where he's coming from. In an ideal, impossible community where everyone gets along, watches out for each other, and works for the common good of all of them, the pooling of all resources is the most logical way to live. Anything anyone acquires goes into the pool, and if someone needs it, they take it from the pool. If I grow a bountiful harvest one year, I give what I can't eat to my community, rather than selling it to them. In turn, I receive necessary goods and services for free. Nobody pays for anything and everybody wins.
Of course, even a single bad actor instantly ruins this economy, which is why it exists purely as a thought experiment.
Yes I actually didn't consider they would be getting something back.
It's okay man, you were probably thinking too realistically about how taxes are handled now.
What the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence states is a good start and foundation. There is also a massive body of common law built up over years in general for things like property, contracts, and resources that would be useful as well. Plus the past laws based on Christian understandings of morality would be generally useful as well as a hedge against many problems.
As for the situations you're describing, its complicated. I think monopolies and monopoly-like situations are cancer, but I'm skeptical of the government's ability to handle them without making things worse or becoming part of the problem themselves. You would need government enforcement (that means police powers) to ensure the laws are upheld, but its very difficult to have that without the risk of corruption or unequal enforcement, especially as morals inevitably decline and the temptation of things like bribery get higher and higher the more powerful these entities become.
Plus the whole slippery slope thing, and the obvious intent of said monopolists to go into government and try and control it for themselves, and with their vast amount of resources, it would likely be pretty easy with enough work.
The government is the middleman. Taxes are pretty much necessary for a government to function, but the money's handling depends on who in the government has control of it. If there's no government, the question is irrelevant as its basically just a lawless hellscape where might and resources alone rule, in which case, I'd say "fuck that retard, I'll go kill him and take his stuff before he kills me and takes my stuff." Its not like he has a right to his own shit that's guaranteed to him by anything, if he doesn't care about morality, then I have no reason to care about him unless I'm fine with dying like a dog. Pretending like someone's right to anything is sacred in the absence of an objective system of law and morality is a way to get milked and destroyed.
I'd posit the aforementioned hypothetical to you:
What's stopping your hypothetical monopolist from going into government and controlling all the resources and all the police power too?
He would become nothing short of a king or emperor at that point, and I'd hardly call being against such an autocracy as communism.
A hedge isn't an impregnable fortress, like I said, the decline of morality is more or less inevitable.
People failed Christianity and by extension morality.
Usury doesn't need to be punished. Being an idiot and not taking something you can't afford is the problem.
There is no reason to execute someone for allowing a friend to borrow ten dollars for a week, and asking for eleven in return.
It's not class related, and no one ever said anything about friends.
You'll find that a lot of people wish to allow everyone some imagined minimum standard of living, or at least an opportunity to strive. The motto you may hear in defense of their guarantees is "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness [or "property" as per a couple of constitutional amendments]." Conceivably, the argument would be made that there would need to be resources available for housing, clothing, schooling, healthcare, policing/judgment for enforcing rules or contracts, and/or some amount of infrastructure. Of course, these will vary with each person you ask.
What I think many people don't fully realize is that other people can also be compassionate, or otherwise flexible to compromise. They may not need forceful threats to give their own resources or time to others. The basic structures that modern people need have often been developed without governments or tax funding in the past. I believe free trade can work. No forcible guarantees.
I agree with this but also, I think part of why things worked better in the past is because communities were smaller and therefore filled with a lot more like-minded people. The more multicultural a country becomes the more it required the use of force to redistribute things because in a multicultural society, your neighbor isn't someone who shares the same moral values and life goals as you, he might be someone you see as plain evil so why would you want to share with him?
I think less government and "just let the people figure it out" works the more similar all the people are. If we want to promote these types of communities then we need to allow freedom of assembly and end human rights such that groups of people can discriminate who they want allowed in their communities and who they don't want allowed in their communities.
There's also personal accountability in small communities. Members develop reputations based on perceptions and behaviours. That element is either completely gone or those in charge are so far out of reach (e.g., the President) that your complaints and options to change things are effectively invisible.
Not just invisible. They openly insult and mock you to make it clear that you have no power. "Our" president stared down a voter with his beady eyes and yelled "HEY PAL I DONT WORK FOR YOU", "You're full of shit!"
Multiculturalism is, in reality, the leading edge of total authoritarianism. As you say, voluntary distribution/redistribution of wealth and resources is only probable when most everyone shares common values, morality, culture, and - let’s be honest - blood. When the population is fractured by multiculturalism, everyone (inevitably) flips from cooperative to competitive, and then the violent coercion of big government becomes necessary to keep the peace. If it is a “democratic” government, the race is on to secure the levers of power for your own tribe so that you may maximally advantage you and yours while maximally sabotaging and oppressing whoever competes with you. If your society is multicultural, you need a good and strong man to rule over everyone with a fair but iron fist. Otherwise you will come to be dominated by the most capable bad actors in your country - the ones most suited to pervert and corrupt your institutions. These people will subvert, enslave, and eradicate your children if you do not fight them.
that's pretty much Singapore
100 people own 50% of all the wealth in the world. It's pretty close. I just said 100 people own 100% instead of 50%.
Is it fair that 100 people can choose how to divvy up 50% of all the wealth? Sure, you still might have access to the other 50% of wealth but your access to resources is always going to run a 50% handicap. Is that alright? What if 100 people owned 51%, or 52% or 99%? Is it only a problem when they own 100%?
I would argue 50% is notably different than 100%.
If I removed 50% of the air from your room, you'd still be able to live, albeit you'd be very sleepy, languid, sluggish, and headachey. If I removed 100% of the air from your room, you'd be dead.
I don't personally like this solution because inherited knowledge/genetics/expertise is a thing. Parents pass on the empire to their kids and the kids manage it. A lot of kids already fuck up and do a bad job, sure but a lot of kids do a good job, hence why empires can be built up to that wealth over centuries. Presuming "competence" is what led to the initial generation of wealth, having this continue means they are adding value to society, presumably. Cutting off the lineage every generation cuts off generational learning to improve society. Many cultures were very caste oriented in the past because they knew the best genetics and teacher for smithing was the smith and he'd teach his son who'd have the best genetics for it all he knew and the son might become better than the master. If the smith wasn't allowed to leave his kids all his knowledge, you might end up with no smith.
It's a bad idea, imo.
You would need a very high and progressive limit for this policy. The family, not the individual, is the building block of society. You can’t just take the father’s wealth and deny his children their intended inheritance. This severance incentivizes bad behavior; why work hard to provide for my son’s future when it will be forcefully redistributed to the son of the lazy asshole next door. More critically, this policy will also drive the creation of competing societal structures - very well-funded ones. Why would I remain in your communist nation when I can cross a border and keep the fruit of my labor? This is the fundamental problem with communism: it cannot succeed in a world where anyone isn’t communist.
Guaranteed? None. You are guaranteed what you are willing to work and fight for.
Your hypothetical isn't unreasonable, it's broken. So I own everything? What stops me from being killed? Just myself? Or perhaps I let everyone be as long as I sit in a palace as a sex slug and be brought attractive girls to have my way with. I doubt I'd find that any way to live. I guess what I give a bunch of people some of my land to keep me from being murdered in my sleep? I don't see how I could ever retain ownership of the world as a mere human. The reality is I have no intents or desires to own the whole world anyway.
If I were to bring your hypothetical down to earth and at least limit it to a large country or something, I'd likely be a fairly benevolent dictator. I'm going to need construction skills, an army, farmers. If it's a large country I can't really overlook everything. Why would I not want to offer my people some sort of comfort? I'm more likely to get a good army or a good worker or whatever if they are well fed, housed, and content. I'd have little patience for the lazy and the criminal. There would be a high level of capital punishment and a low to none of imprisonment, albeit I'd do everything I can to ensure things like fair trials, because again I benefit positively from keeping the good people content and happy. Moral system would be all on me, I said I was a benevolent dictator after all. Want to be a weird sexuality pervert, ok that's fine I mentioned capital punishment, right? I want happy families and hard workers, not a land of useless sex degenerates. It's still my land and I make the rules.
the idea that any sort of selfless care for your fellow man is communism is just as much a psy-op as real communism itself...
a society where everyone is a necessary selfless worker drone would, and did, fall apart instantaneously, because we are individuals as much as part of a collective and cannot, on a biological level, stand not owning anything at all. this we know well.
a society where everyone is a necessary selfish psychopath would fall apart instantaneously no matter the efforts of a few to make selfishness manifest as mutually beneficial trade instead of murder. if there is truly no contract of any sort anywhere that gives anybody the thought that their actions are not fully their own, then someone's gonna make it so they can stop having to friend or foe everyone they see on the horizon.
hell, just look at online survival games like Rust. real life countries are just zerg clans millions strong with less murderous tendencies.
You can trace all the gay shit back to the commies of various stripes.
Full on liberty prime.
This is a fair point. You're essentially saying the "ethical" ideal is what everyone is willing to accept. So from the owners of capital's perspective, they should only give everyone else the absolute bare minimum such that they don't rebel. This seems pretty bleak though but also, it seems to be the exact playbook being engaged in today, which is one of the reason why so many people are miserable. Unless we're willing to fight for more, then it is obvious the moral ideal.
A single emperor is also a single point of failure. One man can kill a person. An entrenched permanent bureaucracy is essentially immortal and invincible. Its removal requires a revolution.
That's an interesting question, and I have seen it from a different point of view. God has created all and knows all, why would he give us anything? Can we abuse God by misusing what he gives us or harming his creations? He has all of the power and by all rights could just wipe us out, but doesn't.
When dealing with someone who owns everything, and nothing is given unless he allows it, how is anyone alive outside of his will? He chooses who survives because any misuse of his possessions can be ended by force. The King's Forest point of view compared to the poacher poor man's point of view.
So, if there are people who live outside of his powers, and can not be touched unless he intervenes by force, he does not own everything. The people can make their own, and thus whatever the man believes he has power over is only as strong as his actual ability to enforce that law. In East Germany, people would smuggle clothes, books, and movies under enormous pressure to not do so. How? Because ownership couldn't be enforced as much as it was purported. To own land, you need enforcers, and to keep them loyal, you need rewards. Even if a small amount is corrupt and willing to trade land, food, and other bits, it will be enough to create a counter. So, they can't actually own the land in the way that they proclaim.
However, they need to at least make the appearance that they have all the power and control because the majority of the people will realize there is no ownership and rebel. The entire ownership rests on the idea that the people accept the falsehood of ownership. If you can't actually enforce something, the next best trick is to make it look like you do and that you punish rebels harshly.
This is why so many rulers declare themselves something akin to God himself. They want the idea that anyone rebelling is going against an all knowing and powerful deity, and not some guy who owns a piece of paper and a few guards to enforce that paper.
I don't think anyone can fully enforce their own power without the use of others, and I doubt they will be perfect in their enforcement. Therefore, all empires fall, even if they have a big surveillance program and extra rules.
Oddly enough, God, who really is all knowing and powerful did the opposite. He created rules, and then suffered his own punishments so we can workout our own salvation. That is so very different from a dictator it is shocking.
Straw man. Price increases with scarcity, and land is a shared resource anyway with dubious ownership claims.
You can’t own all the anything, because supply and demand.
Let’s create a fake situation and say we’re on a spaceship and you somehow take all the water. I’ll likely take it from you without worrying about ownership rights then worry about the ethics later.
So you believe land should be a shared resource? That would in fact solve the problem but also that's pretty communist.
Otherwise, I'm not sure if I agree with the rest of what you're saying. Someone can indeed own everything. And even if it's not just 1 person owning everything. A group of 100 people can own everything and share it among themselves while they completely cutoff the other 100 people from having any access to resources if they wanted to. That can for sure happen. Nothing about your existence demands they accept your offer for labor. Not all motivations are entirely profit driven. If 100 people who own resources all decide they don't like you because you don't bow down to their moral value system, they can 100% cut you off even if you offered to work for them for free.
One person cannot own everything, unless one person is all that exists.
I own my fists. I can beat said 100%Overlord to death, and take their shit. The same is true of every single other human on the planet. They're only safe when all other humans are dead. A key component of extreme libertarianism is a wide employment of private mercenaries/security... Which means your wealth is shared, at the very least, with them. You cannot horde 100%. You need LOYAL minions. And not just enforcer thugs. You need meal preparers. Not chefs, but farmers or hunters. You need builders. Repairers. Not just for you, but for all your minions too. And they can't hate you, or you're poisoned/trapped before you know it. You need, amusingly, middle management, to organize all these minions. Suddenly that wealth is a lot more distributed.
Capitalism is a very social structure. It relies on people interacting, and those interactions going peacefully. And they may only go peacefully, if people believe in a fair-enough system. Because if it isn't "fair-enough", pop, off with their heads, someone else will make it fair enough.
In that regard, a governance or a system which ensures that the populace believes it is "fair-enough", is key to a successful society. Key to not devolving into kill-the-100%Overlord settings. The poor, us, need bread, and need circuses. We also are more effective tools if we are relatively healthy while young, and able to gain skills used to make more wealth for the leaders.
Libertarianism is just as retarded as communism, it's a fictional theoretical utopia that falls apart at the first human decision.
I want people to have enough resources to benefit me by having a stable, predictable society where violence does not have to be used regularly.
Whatever allows the above to occour. Ideally the bottom of maslows hierarchy.
Have you considered that the optimal societies use violence?
Yes, I was specifically referring to what resources the state should provide individuals.
The minimum everyone should have is what they can create or trade for. If you don't contribute to society, why should society contribute to you?
If you own no resources, how can you create or trade for anything?
The same way everyone does. Work for those who built things before you existed. Once you know your craft, you may even be able to create your own business. The way it has worked for millennia.
My point is what if those who own the resources simply say they don't want you to work for them?
So this scenario takes place in an imaginary world that in no way reflects the real world? That's a useful exercise.
No, the scenario goes on in the real world all the time. People argue back and forth nonstop over how much capital owes labor and to what degree. All societies seem to have varying degrees of handling of the situation.
Nobody owes anybody anything. Capital doesn't owe workers their scrip, and labor doesn't owe owners their labor. It's an exchange. Nobody can own everything, except when government and their monopoly on violence. Though intertwined, government is a separate concept from economy. People can be brutalized by any type of economy, no matter what type of government is in power. Ultimately it comes down to who has the bigger tribe and is most willing to use violence to get what they want.
That's a terrible way to understand Communism, tbh.
You're ascribing a lot more to them than what they deserve.
Communism is a shit ideology thought up by a privileged faggot in a coffee shop. just like any top-down system of government that dares to control every aspect of its nation, it is doomed to fail and lead to mass starvation as leaders inevitably become corrupt, incompetent, and oftentimes both.
it creates such an asinine society that even it's creator disavowed it.
No Gods or Kings, Communists are the lowest subhumans and deserve the most violent demise
I bounce back and forth on how things could ideally play out further down the road with regards to overall economics, like 50-200 years from now (obviously assuming that technological developments continue at a solid pace).
For the present day though, I don't think communism has any realistic or practical feasibility or value whatsoever, and is only used as a facade for those who intend to centralize power to their own end.
Would you look at that, a racial collectivist naziboo sliding to the left again (and pretending he was right wing while doing it).
Turns out the national socialist tards have always been socialists. Who could have seen that coming...