Taking Wealth From Those Who Work Hard

submitted by EndlessSunflowers from i.imgur.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Actually, it's both. In Capitalism, wealth is taken from the lower classes and given to the rich. In Socialism, wealth is taken from the lower classes and given to bureaucrats.

Corporatism is the only solution; we must abolish class conflict and enforce national unity.

[–]Zapped 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

What do you mean by "taken"?

Do you think wealth is created or is already in existence?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

What do you mean by "taken"?

In both Capitalism and Socialism, workers ain't paid enough for their labor, which is why CEOs make hundreds — or even thousands — of times more money than their workers.

In Socialism, the state literally comes and takes your property. That happens in Capitalism too, through eminent domain, but it's a much larger issue in Socialism.

Do you think wealth is created or is already in existence?

Both. Land, labor, and capital are already available, but when combined: they can create new value.

[–]Zapped 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I disagree on both accounts. Land and labor have no value until it's utilized. Who's to say I'm not paid enough to sit on the couch watching television? Nothing's produced. Something only has value when someone is willing to "pay" for it. We all place our own value on things. It can be different. Society, or the collective, finds a common value for such things. Sure, value can be manipulated, but at the end of the day it's traded from person to person freely in a true capitalist system. If we're talking about fairness, that's a different conversation. If we're talking about what type of economic/political system the U.S. has now, that's a different conversation.

[–][deleted]  (1 child)

[deleted]

    [–]Zapped 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Gotcha.

    [–]InvoluntaryHalibut 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

    Dont you think there will always be class conflict due to the fact that some people are more able than others to produce useful goods and services? Im not talking about Wall Street financiers. But some people are smart enough to design sky scrapers and some people aren’t fit to build a sand castle. Human beings arrange themselves in hierarchies no matter what. The question is, do you want that hierarchy based on talent for deceit? Or ability to produce useful goods and services that improve the overall health of the society?

    Alot of poor people are either stupid or criminal or both. It sucks but its true. These people are not capable of producing wealth. They are unlikely to perform well in even a low skill job. While I dont want them to live in bad conditions, I am not in favor of subsidizing them to have families.

    [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    Dont you think there will always be class conflict due to the fact that some people are more able than others to produce useful goods and services?

    That's not class conflict, that's competition — which we need. Conflict between individuals to satisfy the market is not the same thing as pitting the Workers against the Owners, or vice-versa.

    Human beings arrange themselves in hierarchies no matter what.

    Exactly. That's why Anarchism will never work.

    The question is, do you want that hierarchy based on talent for deceit?

    In Capitalism and Socialism: it's based on deceit. In Corporatism: it's based on talent — especially if you integrate technocratic elements.

    Or ability to produce useful goods and services that improve the overall health of the society?

    In Capitalism, businesses make terrible products, because planned obsolescence makes them more money. In Socialism, the government makes terrible products, because planned economies can't satisfy people's needs like a market can.

    Alot of poor people are either stupid or criminal or both.

    Most poor folks ain't either one of those, they're poor due to factors outside their control: nobody's hiring, they can't pay for college, they're disabled, etc. We can debate the causes of these issues, but you can't pretend like they don't exist.

    In an ideal world: people would only be poor, because they refused to work, or because they committed a crime — but we don't live in an ideal world, and we likely never will.

    While I dont want them to live in bad conditions, I am not in favor of subsidizing them to have families.

    What part of what I said even implied that?

    [–]InvoluntaryHalibut 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    Most poor folks ain't either one of those, they're poor due to factors outside their control

    The military did a study where they determine they had no use for people with an IQ below 83 or something in that neighborhood. That is usually something out of a person’s control but there may be 10 to 20 of the US population that falls under that level. There might be some overlap but there is at least an additional 5 or 10 % that are too psycho to ever be trusted in a professional setting. Add to that some physically disabled people and you may have at least a quarter of the population that are not really capable of being productive in their entire life.

    The question is how much do you subsidize them? Most of them will want to have children and nice houses and college educations. I just think if you subsidize them at all you will have to somehow prevent them from reproducing because if you don’t you are literally breeding a genetic underclass of beggars. But then people will call me a mean eugenicist or something.

    Im not implying anything, just wondering how you deal with a large number of people that are almost certainly going to be a burden on society.

    [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    That doesn't prove all poor folks have low IQs — or even that most poor folks have low IQs.