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.
Oh, doh. I'm glad I probably kept any spoilers to a minimum then.
“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.”