Dude kinda has a point.

#socialism #communism #facebook

@freemo
No, that person has a poor understanding of socialism. In true socialism you: (a) don't get things for free, you work for them. Ah, you are unexploited in your work, that's different; (b) there are no rich as opposed to poor; (c) you have privacy but not at the cost of others' basic needs; (d) you are encouraged to express well-reasoned opinions, since they can only contribute to everyone's benefit.
...
I would appreciate if you make my mini-list known. I will also do that. Good luck!

@cosas
I disagree, that is what pro communist/socialists think it will cause, but in reality that does not describe it at all.

@freemo
What reality? The fake socialist regimes of history did not carry genuine socialism. Who else tried to really implement a system where EVERY person is not only given all chances to contribute, but is also properly rewarded for her/his efforts? Properly rewarded, not paid with junk, while the bosses profit/steal.
On what grounds are the rich rich? Can you truly enjoy your comforts knowing that the majority of humans lack the basic necessities? They aren't all lazy, right?...

@cosas
Ahh the good old "no true scotsman" fallacy. You will never have true communism how you idealize it to be because it simply can not exist. All you will ever get is the horrible human rights disaster we get everytime a nation attempts communism.

The rich are rich because they created their wealth through expiernce, knowledge, and hard work. There is a reason the majority of billionaires in the world started as middle class and lower and are self made. As for everyone else, no mot everyone is lazy, some make bad decisions, some dont even want to be rich, there are many reasons.

@freemo
At least we remain in civil terms. I've had worse experiences :)
I could also say you rush to conclusions based on failed social experiments with so-called socialism.
Maybe I prefer idealism to a "reality" that ignores so much suffering in the world, very little of which is due to bad decisions or "not wanting" to be rich. Maybe many of the poor just want a minimalist decent life and they are not allowed even that because others are too greedy.
I realize I cannot convince you, oh well..

@cosas
You have been nothing but respectful, i would have no reason to be uncivil just because we disagree on something.

Its not so much that its idealism, its more about it fundamental not working because it is naive to how money and wealth works as well as human nature. Usually i find communists fail to understand that wealth is not some fixed quantity of money where someone being rich and having alot means others have less. In reality wealth is constantly being generated and destroyed and much of the wealth rich people have is wealth they created in the first place. Eliminate the rich and you eliminate wealth for the whole of society. This why every time you attempt communism the result is the same, an extremely poor nation with everyone starving to death and very little progress.

@freemo
The planet resources are limited, therefore some having more (even if they truly deserved, which is highly unlikely) means others have less.
Let's not forget that the majority of the rich come from affluent backgrounds which in their turn based their accumulation on human exploitation.
If wealth is that easily generated, why don't the highest rich eradicate world poverty??
Fake socialist regimes did not eliminate the rich; the new leaders became rich themselves...

@cosas
Everything about this post is factually incorrect.

For starters wealth is not equivelant to planetary resources nor is the quantity of all resources fixed. For example if i buy a farm and breed cows im increasing the number of cows and therefore creating wealth/resources that didnt exist before. Further i might be a seller of farm tech and invented and sold some technology that enables a person to support more cows on less land. Wealth creation is not and has never been directly dictated by the quantity of resources as if it were a fixed value

Second the idea that most of the rich come from affluent backgrounds is factually false. The majority of the rich, in fact, come from poor and middle class homes, ive cited several sources on my page proving this in the past.

The reason the rich dont destroy world poverty is several reasons, one is that wealth can be destroyed just as it can be created. So if they truly dumped all their monry into the poor, since these people are for the most part people with bad monry habits, it would destroy most of the worlds wealth and put us all in poverty. Second, there wouldnt be even close to enough money to solve the problem long term anyway, at best it would fix the problem for a short time. The only way to fix the problem is to get the poor to have good money habits so thry become wealth generators rather than wealth destroyers, this is a complex problem to fix.