o_O.Q said:
Jaicee said:
I've long considered myself to be a socialist, and personally, when I use that term, I refer to a general system of social ownership and management, to put it simply. More specifically, I would count myself a communalist, which is a type of socialism that is based on local community ownership and management (collective economic planning, etc.) and participatory democracy.
The most common argument that I hear against socialist systems is that they are inefficient. In my observation, I would say that appears to be true. And I don't care. In contrast to the Marxist point of view, I am not concerned about whether or not such a system generates a lot of economic growth. In fact, I tend to favor a no-growth economy because the callous and reckless efficiency of the capitalist system is precisely its problem.
The fact of the matter is that the main reason why both poverty and the global average temperature are on the rise in the world today is precisely because there is too much production going on as things are; so much that it is not even ecologically sustainable! So much that weaponry has become affordable to almost every bad actor on the planet, which has resulted in a fairly steady increase in the amount of warfare going on this century. We could stand to have a more egalitarian distribution of wealth at the expense of a level of productive efficiency that is doing more harm than good anyway in my opinion.
|
" We could stand to have a more egalitarian distribution of wealth at the expense of a level of productive efficiency that is doing more harm than good anyway in my opinion."
that's not how it works... if you tax the rich to the point where they don't receive a certain level of profit for their efforts... why would they bother?, i know i wouldn't
what socialists don't get is if you take out the rich productive people then everyone suffers because the advancements they produce that improve life for everyone are stifled as a result
|
What you still don't understand is that socialism is not based on taxation of the rich. Rather, as it is based on an economic system without classes wealth wouldn't even need to be distributed in the first place.
