You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Alliance between Left & Right
Ok but what I am saying is that:
"Means justify the end, not end justify the means"
So I would like the empowerment approach, where disadvantaged people would become empowered, instead of advantaged people becoming unpowered.
So I am for pro human excellence, and I would like if all people would become successful.
That has always been the approach to leftism.
That is good, then we can really have an alliance.
I kind of get confused with all this 20th century communism thing, because it's very easy to fool the masses, once you give too much power and place too much faith in a small group of people like the Bolsheviks.
So my point being is that the government and the rulers will always try to hijack any real movement.
Bolsheviks are cancer of the highest level. "We take the worst of left and right wing ideologies and put in a big government, we also call ourselves the only real communists.....What's the communist manifesto?"
We are after the destruction of private property. That is how the rich and governments extort the working class.
I tend to have some small disagreements there. I think the working class is more broad than people realize, I think investors are crucial for an economy, you might not call them workers because they dont do physical work, but they do take individual risks, to quarantine the economy from systemic risk (like the banking system that has enveloped the entire world). Basically equality in the sense that we dont like monopolies, but people are still free to show their best talents.
I am not sure what you mean by private property, I think you pretty much realize by now that cryptocurrencies are very essential for human liberty, and it's private property, the keys are private.
If you mean by things like corporations/companies, then I sort of agree, because a corporation is a fictional government approved entity.
"I might think of a system like something of a basic income ,but until something like that comes out, these are the options."
Wrong
Also the only option is extort or get extorted what you said made no difference, it just gives them an opportunity to extort earlier.
How about a system where you get what you produce.......like I said
Read my welfare article, I don't advocate for taxes, it would be all voluntary.
It would be sustainable and it would give enough income for people to get started, and whatever they earn besides that would be their bonus.
Like you said, you dont want people to sell their labor,because you consider that as slavery, but now if they have 1 asset that they can rely on, they have a better negotiating power.
Like if you are starving you might take a toilet cleaner job out of necessity.
But if you have an asset like a basic income ,then you refuse that job and search for a better one.
If people are to become rich no matter what it necessarily must come from the labor of the poor, it doesn't appear magically.
You can't have people making more money than they produce from labor and be against oppression of the lower classes.
If all property is owned the only thing a working man has to sell is his labor. You can easily give him just enough to survive and survive yourself off his labor.
Work and get the results of your labor taken or starve. That is indirect force, but force nonetheless
No. Indirect force is not responsible, just like a kitchen knife manufacturer is not responsible if a person accidentally cuts himself with it.
I would have some interesting ideas how to help people start off in life, so that by the time they turn 18 they can have enough cash to do something productive. I might write an article about that. You might want to check my idea about a voluntary welfare system:
https://steemit.com/anarchy/@profitgenerator/decentralized-voluntary-welfare-system
But basically it comes down like this: For a kid, the parents are his income source, and parents should provide enough resources for that kid to start off well in life. For an adult, he can either inherit, borrow, or work for his assets.
I might think of a system like something of a basic income ,but until something like that comes out, these are the options.
It has happened before. If one man is able to command another economically through private property.
A revolution would likely break out into mutualism, market socialism, and communism.
Market socialism for example has free trade, like capitalism, but the workers are able to control the workplace, opposed to an outside owner.
This is incompatible with capitalism, however, a person will easily be able to choose which one he/she would like to live in.
" If one man is able to
commandanother economically through private property."There is no
commandin capitalism, there is only cooperation. If I am paying 100 people to perform a service for me, that is not slavery. If I pay them why would they revolt?It is a contractual relation, if they dont honor their part of the contract, that will just tarnish their reputation. And they will lose their collateral/guarantee that they have pledged.
Private property is something you labor on another owns and personal property is something that you own and use.
Yeah but you still need investors to finance big projects. Even if money would not exist, you still need to organize a lot of people in a good way to build a bridge for example. And we just know from experience that with money's it's the easiest to do this, even internationally.
So the systems that money has with it like lending, investing, trading, should not be dismissed.
It's not that I advocate for feudalism, but there has to be some sort of private property system, there is just no other way.
Now if you say that that is enforced with violence, I agree that should be changed. I think a global reputation system + global land registry blockchain is a far better system than courts and land registry office.
So I would like to have capitalism without violence, where emphasis is put on reputation an integrity.