Hey Sup Forums, user from /lit/ here with some thoughts.
One thing I don't understand about political theory that people talk about on other boards is, how could simply redistributing all of the wealth be an undesirable course for our society in the long-term? Every one of you would probably stand to benefit from such a system.
Other urls found in this thread:
...
Because people are greedy fucks and will eventually accumulate wealth and/or resources
>Every one of you would probably stand to benefit from such a system.
Implying I'm not above the mean in income.
I am not the lowest common denominator therefore I stand to lose.
Poor people are poor in the United States because they're both stupid and lazy.
Making these losers nigger rich will solve nothing.
Same reason there has been a famine in every communist regime. You cannot redistribute FUTURE wealth, and a policy of redistribution makes people less likely to produce in excess.
For example, the USSR. Farmers had everything but the minimum they needed to feed their family redistributed. You know what they did? They started producing only enough to feed their family.
The only way to prevent this is to force them to produce ie Slavery.
>redistributing all of the wealth
What's my incentive to work in that system?
It doesn't matter I have something to gain from it. Other people are not entitled to the money you make.
The desire for personal gain is ultimately what motivates individuals to succeed.
Because capitalism is a system that rewards people that are intelligent.
Speaking in terms of the economy, if you have a limited resource, you want to make sure that limited resource is spent as wisely as possible. The people who can do this are at the top 1%. People who spend resources as though they are infinite are the people who are at the bottom 1%.
As long as their is a finite resource, capitalism would succeed. However capitalism is rendered unusable in a system of infinite resources. While the opposite is true for socialism.
>the intelligent
Okay, everyone that doesn't have a perfect score is becomes a slave.
If someone scores higher then you, you must give him all of your things and he will decide what you are paid.
>I decide on an arbitrary system that is in my interest and you must accept it.
Kill yourself retard.
Give me one good reason why uneducated (and therefore poor) people should have control of even a fraction of my nation's wealth?
Why should an idiot be making any kind of decision that impacts the society he lives in?
, bro, used "their" not there.
I wouldn't take very seriously. Communism fails bc people aren't moticated to get shit done and the communist leader, for whatever reason, generally becomes a dictator. #absolutepowercorruptsabsolutely
Actually political theory buff here.
That question can be answered pretty simply.
Consider that resources are finite. It's dark outside and you need to see. You have 3 batteries, 3 flashlights, and 3 people. Each flashlight needs two batteries. Does it make sense to give each person 1 battery? No, you give one person all 3 batteries so they can use the flashlight, and as compensation for giving up the batteries that the others could have taken, you let them use your light.
In a world with infinite batteries, you don't have a problem--but we don't live in that world. You can think of labor as a resource too.
Violence and the will to power are relevant too but I'll just let you think about how force can act as a resource.
In another way, would you rather have as many cookies as you want, or less than you want? In a world of finite resources, someone will always find a way to get what they want and it will always come at the expense of someone else.
Give me one reason anyone should have any resource?
You don't need money, you only need food and bread to study and worker/improve society.
How old are you? Seem like idealistic young'un. Get real life experience. Understand human nature. Traits such as greed, ambition, drive, competitiveness, etc are essential for survival and advancement.
BrightEyedFaggot
Economies grow, and I would argue wealth can be said to be generated or created, not always (re)allocated.
For example, people create intellectual property (like a operating system or a chemical process). How does your theory account for that?
This is true. People seem to have this idea that democracy is the way to go when people doesnt give a flying fuck what happens in their country. I could claim that the world would be a lot better place if people with a degree would be allowed to vote, and those who didnt would have their vote declined. Not only would it ensure a fullhearted vote, but it would also make politics and a degree something to yearn for, instead of a chore
Hey /lit/, Sup Forums here.
Why don't they just move the good pages of literature to some of the bad books so that all books are worth reading.
Because we are not robots. People do people shit
This is what people don't get. The ones who always complain about US policy abroad.
There is a finite amount of resources on this planet. Whether you want to admit it or not the people in our government are a lot smarter than you are. They have access to information you do not.
They are doing everything they do to set up the US in the best possible position for the encroaching storm.
This requires: allies, a strong military, technology, and our supplemental untapped domestic oil reserves that we have just recently "discovered" (lol).
gg. if you are not a staunch ally of the US then you are gonna have a bad time soon.
Venezuela.
Keeping up and being able to compete is probably the issue with communist countries. Venezuela has all the country in the world. They knew how to allocate it; then, oil prices dropped like the bass at a shitty dubstep concert.
>They are doing everything they do to set up the US in the best possible position for the encroaching storm.
They are setting up the best form for corporations to profit.
get the fuck out of here government shill, the USA doesn't exist.
Because people have sacrificed and worked for years and decades to produce something of value to pass along to their progeny. This desire to create and have something has been the catalyst for every amazing invention and technology over the past several hundred years. Giving the fruits of this labor to those who've done nothing to earn it undermines our founding principles, that of life, liberty, and property. Do you hate your right to property, really?
Because it improves their quality of life.
Honestly that's pretty simple.
Would you be satisfied if your compensation for doing anything was merely food/bread/water? In 2016?
Get real.
If you want to improve society today you do it through technology and science.
You aren't thinking like a smart person. I gave you a very simple example. Production of resources, no matter what they are, is limited. You cannot create 50 different equally great operating systems out of thin air. People have to spend time to do so. (labor is also a finite resource, limited in the simplest terms by food production)
Because nobody would bother producing any wealth.
Would you go study an extremely challenging discipline, spend a lot of time and money to acquire some sought after skills only to be taxed at 80% so you never really enjoy the fruits of your labour?
wealth is created, not just spread around
this is the ultimate failure in any socialist/communist system
>They are setting up the best form for corporations to profit.
Really?
What good is a corporation in a country that has no global power?
What good is your wealth?
Why spend billions of dollars maintaining bases overseas just to put a few million in your ghost "jew corporation" bank account?
Do you actually think at all?
You have to be 18 to post here, fag
You want a society solely of intellectuals and elites?
Feel free to have it, you will be allocated some land and those who do not believe in such a system will have our land.
It doesn't work. We probably need concentrations of wealth, education etc to allow important things to happen. When we try to spread things out, things just stop happening.
Maybe it's because the kind of thing that pushes society forward-- science, industry, or culture-- can only be undertaken with huge rewards on offer.
Maybe it's because most people are so mediocre as to be almost useless, and you need to have a few geniuses with access to a huge pool of resources to do anything halfway worthwhile.
You're retarded.
>1 post by ID
Slide thread. ABANDON IT.
The system keeping them down is neither the only, nor the biggest reason, poor people are poor.
Redistributing wealth to be squandered by idiots is a complete waste of everybody's time.
No inventors had a huge pool of resource, money to the elites they don't need it, the ones who need it the most are the underclasses.
And the non intellectuals demand maximum pay because it improves their quality of life, merit plays no role in this sector.
Have you seen what the underclass does when they get ahold of some resources?
Besides get drunk and buy stupid shit, they have children. More ignorant, defective, degenerate children who now have to have even more resources reallocated to them.
After a while you end up with idiocracy.
it's none of your concern.
>1 post by this ID
Spoiler: the reason the capitalist system works probably doesn't have much to do with the virtues of the system, or encouraging the best people to create things. The capitalist system encourages the best people to *procreate* and then pass that wealth on to their progeny, who are equipped like their parents to build, create, and drive us all forward.
Charity is the worst thing for the long-term viability of the human race. It encourages the worst in us.
Its my concern if I'm fucking paying for it.
Nothing happens in a vacuum. Maybe it's none of MY concern, but it will be the concern of people 25-50 years hence-- just like welfare and the relaxation of immigration laws 25-50 years ago are currently my concern.
I don't mind market socialism, although I'm opposed to Marxism.
The former being businesses acting as worker owned cooperatives with profit sharing, the later being a resource based economy that leads to shortages.
With that said it seems to me that most people think that all socialism is equivalent to Marxism.
you're not paying anything, nothing of what you produce is doing anything.
I've heard that called libertarian socialism.
Do you think that businesses should be legally required to be workers co-ops?
you can go die in a ditch that none of my production is affected "intellectual".
>worker owned cooperatives with profit sharing
That's probably sustainable, but businesses run by individuals can make decisions much more quickly and adapt to changing situations. "Socialism" as you lay out probably won't last.
(i) distribution of resources isn't nearly as hard a problem as how to grow resources. It's relatively easy to know how to distribute resources.
(ii) I would argue economic growth differentiates winner and loser nations. How to achieve growth is much harder than how to distribute resources.
(iii) Finally, because how to achieve growth is such a ill-defined thing, the best way to spur growth is to motivate innovators. As said, and is reflected in a prev posts, its driven by personal betterment, improved quality of life, pussy, money, weed... etc
How to distribute resources isn't what fucks rulers up. Unless that ruler is grossly incompetent. I would argue communist rulers are given too much power and abuse their powers. There's so many reasons, but figuring out who gets how many french fries isn't one of them, from a theory standpoint.
Because it's never about redistributing the wealth from the elites, it's about redistributing the wealth from people who work, to idiots who refuse to, or are too stupid to work.
It will make everyone a slave to the state, run by the very same elite who communists campaign against.
It's not arbitrary, it's the natural order of things.
Communism only works if you hold the intelligent and hardworking at gunpoint.
You seem to be under the assumption that wealth is created from thin air.
>subject to increased taxes
>instead of direct payment
>suddenly this means you're not paying for it
Go be economically retarded somewhere else.
your system will only work when we have robotos to do everything for us.
while people have to work human nature prevents it.
while I toil a dindu who hates me is getting high on my dime.
also Talmudic kikes exist they subvert everything they touch.
>Hurr why can't I eat all this candy, it will taste great and be fun, what could possibly go wrong
Seriously you should have your head bashed in
>Communism only works if you hold the intelligent and hardworking at gunpoint.
Go and move, to your "intelligent" society.
I can't reply to this because you didn't specify who you were replying to so...
>paying for it
>none of the production that I consume comes from the service he provided
if anything I'm paying him through being bonded to this currency while he produces nothing, a rationalized parasite.
>Do you think that businesses should be legally required to be workers co-ops?
Probably although smaller businesses don't bother me as much. My main issue is with large multi-nationals who lobby the government, push for open borders and generally work towards removing the sovereignty of all nations to allow the free flow of labor and capital.
Well, I agree that capitalism allows for faster growth although the problem is that if you're a business owner your most logical goal would be to crush all competition and eventually form a monopoly within your particular industry. A cooperative system wouldn't necessarily work that way since the more a business grows, the more the profits have to be distributed to the employees, which would lead to lower wages. It seems to me that it would allow for the preservation of markets in a way that classical liberalism does not.
How about people earn their own wealth instead of having other people work for their wealth only to see it stolen and given to those who didn't work
>how could simply redistributing all of the wealth be an undesirable course for our society in the long-term
ignoring all the bad points of equal wealth, there is no feasible way for the redistribution to be performed without going through a central power first which will inevitably take a cut of the wealth and leave the population much worse off than before
for a real world example pick any country that tried communism
This is also stupid as anyone can get a degree. Especially when College basically just an indoctrination center that hands them out to people for writing a two page paper on the patriarchy.
It doesn't matter who is allowed to vote, democracy does not work. Fascism or monarchies are the only sustainable form of government.
Because niggers
how about we destroy the currency and make everyone produce all their things?
If they can't create a factory, build a house, build roads, build farming machines by themselves then they are parasites leeching off the intelligence of others.
>They are doing everything they do to set up the US in the best possible position for the encroaching storm.
No, they are doing everything they can to personally benefit themselves and their kike masters.
Do you know how to build a car?
If you don't and own a car you're filthy parasite.
Communism doesn't let you.
Trust me, if they let people escape, the system would fail instantly. Why do you think the Berlin Wall was built? It wasn't to keep capitalists out.
Soviet Union wasn't socialist in any way.
Great argument.
Success is not enough. For me to be satisfied niggers must also suffer
>eventually form a monopoly
Difficult without government help.
OH haha ok.
>b-b-b-b-b-b-but muh troo socialism has never been tried
I forgot that these kinds of idiots still exist.
You'll destroy wealth in the redistribution process. Either by discouraging the creation of wealth or by giving it to those that squander it, or both.
>do not distribute land equally
>do not distribute resources equally
>socialist
They tried and failed, like every group of people who tried socialism before them.
True, however government is a tool. It can be a tool of the people or it can be a tool of the financial elite.
okie dokie friend
I'm sure one of these days a REAL socialist is gonna come around and everything will work out JUST fine :)
Read this book.
When examining any policy, don't look at the intentions of its creators, but the incentives that it creates. Any system of redistribution (see: any Communist nation) creates incentives for laziness and needless bureaucracy.
I strongly recommend you listen to the audiobook in small snippets whenever you can: youtube.com
>tried
>take away land from people
>socialist
kill yourself kike.
This is 99% true. However, if people had ambition to work for the future of their country and their people, instead of just thinking of themselves then they very may well get by with socialism.
>private property
>socialism
kys
So you mostly want anti-corruption laws?
Lol this meme again.
Ask yourself why? What good is a few extra million in the pocket of someone who already has billions of dollars?
Wake the fuck up.
Fellow /lit/ poster here. Socialism is fundamentally wrong because it makes the false assumption that all people are equal. Power struggles, my friend. Did you not listen to what Judge Holden said in Blood Meridian??
Socialism means increasing the standard of living of the people, power to the people.
Utopia is only worth a damn as a description. As a prescription, it's always played out to be an inhumane hell.
The map and the territory are very different. The notion that man can quanitify the world's wealth, let alone responsibly steward it, that's one heck of a map ya got there but you should really just put it down and try climbing the mountain.
That is Socialism, KIKE.
brics has a better access to oil and more manufacturing capacity than us and our cronies though
>that throw
I can't believe they actually kept it in
So guess why we wage these proxy wars and put bases around the world?
Do you have proof of him being a NEETbux worm, or are you just projecting from a high horse to make it look like you're winning the debate?
False equivalency. Do you even understand what you're arguing?
>socialism is private property
Ask Venezuela how well such a system works.
To infuriate the Russian sphere of influence until they drown us all in nuclear hellfire?
I want to understand what you're saying so can you please stop using metaphors and just say it.
>How could removing the primary factor behind people working be undesirable in the long run
Socialism is property controlled by a group, usually the government.