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"?
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