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 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?
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.