then you clearly care for politics lol

Because I believe the freedom to own private property should be tolerated contingent on payment of tax and abiding by the law

Plus central planning is inefficient so I would end up supporting some kind of market anyway

Well i don't feel like that. If just keeping up on a surface level with whats going on in your country (especially now cause it's voting time) means you clearly care for politics then i don't wanna further realize how f***ed up the state of this world is. Cause like isn't this how 90% of the people handle politics

you’re white! dnt care !

Fair enough I wasn't being specific enough to your point, I'll try to articulate it better:

I think there is enough surplus money to improve the standard of living greatly, for those who need it, without making anyone else's life uncomfortable.

If taking (some) money from people who are worth hundreds of billions worth (if not totaling trillion dollars in assets and whatever other factors people measure it by) is the way to ease the suffering of those doing backbreaking work (for insultingly low wages, bad to no healthcare, with their lives being decided by institutions that allow all types of bad things to befall people with no intention to fix them), I think it's necessary

well its better on average but why would you expect a self-interested rich person to support it

I mean its against the whole idea of class war to expect that so idg where youre coming from really

I was thinking in the grander scheme of some peoples arguments ITT, not just your specific point, my b

but in short, I don't think anyone's life will be made uncomfortable by upping the standard of living for all people (because we would be prioritizing the well-being of everyone not just those who can expend the most money as it is now).

Unless personal greed is the only thing that you think is important, which, if so, f*** you I don't know what to tell u lol

as always, socialism is not the government doing stuff

but nah for real

this is why im not a socialist

yeah I was just making that point about that one poster so

wouldnt this actually make you a socialist

And what argument are you falling back on besides the synop nature argument?

Why won’t you consider the desires of billions when planning your fantasy land?

well presumably the living standard of billions would go up, if socialism is transitioned to successfully

Ok i see what u were looking for with your post,

It'd depend on the person,

I mean we can talk about the future and if they don't care about the state of the planet or other human beings then that is a roadblock. If they don't care that the environment is going to s*** because the motive for profits is higher than the motive to make sure the coming generations have some kind of breathable air, and that they don't have to live in poverty, I can't really relate to that

I don't really know what to tell that person and I'm not equating people who have money to extreme selfishness, but opposition to plans that would ease the suffering of people is another thing

i am, wym

That's called bars

flex voice

That’s bold to assume that socialism knows what makes people happy. I don’t think the standard of living would be good in a world where you only get what has been arbitrarily deemed necessary for survival

People want more than that

my understanding is that the dictum of socialism is "to each according to his contribution", and communism is the final stage of socialism where "to each according to his need" applies

so the initial transition is about preventing the surplus generated by workers from being stolen by capitalists, not whatever it is you're taking issue with

Ur "surface level" is deeper than a lot of people will ever care for, and that's the issue

A lot of people just vote with their party and call it a day

What does to each according to his contribution mean? Because to me that sounds like there is still a hierarchy in place.

If you contribute more then you get more in return? That's capitalism

The desires of billions is to have their material needs met

I've read books on central planning where actual socialist authors will be like "yeah we would still have diff classes of workers with diff levels of compensation in labour hours"

i.e. the book by cockshott which is the most famous on the subject i believe

so how to deal with hierarchy, I believe there are ways of preventing intergenerational inequality from setting in despite people getting different levels of "compensation", thats just me though

now if you are the type of socialist who says "yeah its gonna be super great but planning will be decentralized and everyone gets the same return etc etc":
i dont think it will work very well lol

your last line is completely wrong though, bezos does not contribute more than a top level engineer but has 100,000x as much

See that's the thing: just because basic human needs are being met, doesn't mean that all other things just dissolve away like entertainment or any of these other things,

It's more just in terms of work that you have more of a say in the work that you do and you see more of the benefit from going to work for a large portion of your entire life on the planet

Everyone's basic needs being met =/= People can't have other things other than what's provided to them based on just general common sense