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"?
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.