AOC is socialist. Is that bad?

Except that Communism is the one thing that many of these people would actually benefit from. Real Communism, that is. Not this fake BS that Lefty Progressives truck. But since that requires a full commitment to work and shared living, they won't do it. CHOICES. They'd rather be poor, than work and compromise.

 

What? Of course they are. Families do it all the time, most without ever having the first clue of what collectivism is. All it takes is family stability in one place, gradually building on any resources via shared costs etc. If everyone pitches in, far more can be achieved than by 'poor' individuals. Again, your 'poor' aren't doing this. Instead they either have too many kids, or get divorced, or move around too much, or spend all their money on renting individual homes instead of pooling together to buy something, or they're just plain too dysfunctional to live with other human beings. ALL CHOICES.

Rents are predicated on the number of bedrooms, and the general market value of property. And of COURSE rents (and mortgages) are cheaper when shared. As are the costs of utilities, and groceries, and home maintenance, etc.

 

real communism encourages everyone to leach off the other guy. 10 farmers farming for the group or 10 farmers farming for their own food? Which produces more food?? 1+1=2

 

You can't leach of your fellows when your fellows (and yourself) are all working 60 hours a week, living in the same standard of housing, and eating the same food.

 

Your post is a perfect description of the system we're currently living under. It serves ONLY the master families that are wealthy.

 

Does she want to do good things or bad things? What does she want to do?

 

I know there are examples of socialism gone bad. But today's America is an example of failed capitalism, because it doesn't serve the nation's people, but serves only the wealthy few. All systems can be abused by greedy, selfish leaders to do more harm than good. But socialism CAN be a tremendous help in eliminating some of the extreme disparities we all live with.

 

Actually, it serves the master 100%. He is free to do whatever he wants, while his 'slave', must keep working. And let's not pretend that all the slaves are rich. The vast majority are ordinary working tax payers.

 

The master being the state, correct?

 

Yes, it can help, but only when every person involved AGREES to it. And by agree, I mean agree to work for it. There is no other way that Socialism can be acquired.

You are still mistaking Capitalist largess, for Socialism. As long as you expect some to work while others take it easy, you will never have anything like Socialism, and you will never have anything like equity.

 

No, the master is the person 'unwilling to work', who expects his slaves (those who work to fund the master) to pay for him.

 

Capitalism can not exist without socialism

 

There is no slavery in the USA

 

The tax payer is enslaved to non-participants. If those people actually participated, taxation would not be slavery. It would be 'common purse'.

 

Oh, you were referring to the state. Yes, I agree that the state enslaves its subjects. That's why I am anti-state.

 

I am all for tax personally, but NOT when it funds people 'unwilling to work'.

 

I oppose theft, so I can't condone the state or taxes.

 

It's not theft if everyone is doing it. It's a shared responsibility, with 'shared' being the operative word.

 

Yes, it is. Taking something that doesn't belong to you is theft. It doesn't matter if one person or 1,000,000 people do it.

Also, when you say "everyone" do you mean 100% of people? If so, theft would then seem to be logically impossible. How could every single person collectively steal from....who???

Sharing is caring.

 

Example. 100 people agree to farm 100 acres of land, via common purse and common labor. All have the same standard of housing, the same food, and the same working hours. No one is paid a wage. How is the product of any individual's labor (let's call it harvested cabbages) stolen, in that scenario?

 

Exactly. And socialism is 100%. It can't work unless it is.

 

Voluntary agreement. Pure capitalism. No problem there.

 

It absolutely has to be voluntary, yes. Will never work otherwise.

But it isn't Capitalism, because it produces no surplus (profit). The goal is sustainability and self-sufficiency, which doesn't require profits in the usual sense.

 

That is their profit.

Also, I'm not enamored of the term capitalism. I prefer to think of a society in which liberty and private property are protected.

If a bunch of people want to buy some land (private property) and establish a kibbutz, more power to them. If they want to put no money aside and live hand to mouth, more power to them.

On the flip side, if someone wants to start up a dog walking business and hire a bunch of people to walk dogs, I'm fine with her making a living off of that endeavor.

Liberty and secure property are the way to achieve a peaceful and prosperous society.

 

We agree on all points. I'm a bit of a Nearing fan, and as he demonstrated, the private property thing is key. Whether it's owned or leased, the collective must have full autonomy on its use. That is their liberty.