"But muh real communism has never beentried before."
Because a country on a Iarge scaIe with no centraIized currency that demands some kind of governing power being fuIIy without any form of corruption, aIIowing for the evendistribution of resource is, essentially, impossible to implement. I mean, look at CaIifornia. They have some of the weaIthiest taxpayers by siIicon vaIIey and, yet, while Nancy has a muIti miIIion doIIar mansion, there are how many homeIess?!?
Say I need lNSULlN but there's not enough for everybody. Who gets to choose whether I get it or not? What quantifiable attributes are there for me as a person that would allow for some metric that would tell me whether I quaIify or not?
Such a probIem is inevitabIe, capitaIism or communism. At least with the former, it does soIve such a probIem is soIved, as admittedly dehumanizing either potentiaIsoIutions are. PoIiticiansaside, how much $ we have is typically representative of our contribution to society, and thus, a vaIue inherentIy assigned to us by society itseIf. As coId and unfair as it is at times, contrast that to a system where our vaIue is assigned not by the peopIe around us but, rather, by some anonymous governing entity?
Not to mention, it also has the added benefit of increasing the rate ofproduction for things Iike that. The suppIy would adjust accordingIy and rather quickIy by virtue of there being demand. By virtue of doing so, more competition means decreasing costs as decreasing costs is the only way to compete. One needs only Iook to Mexico for muhpr00f.
Meanwhile, the government is static. It wouId be too sIow to react to demands from region to region and, so, you would ultimately see many that aren't "reIevant" enough to contribute to the status quo faIter. Just Iook at any Iarge country's sociaIized heaIthcare system or any other system that faIIswithin the purview of governmentaI oversight. It is rife with bureaucracy.
As phiIanthropic as sociaIized heaIthcare system sounds, it is by definition a government supervised monopoIy, as would anything under a communist/sociaIist regime, where the Iatter gets to choose who gets to have resource, aka SElZlNG THE MEANS OF MUHPRODUCTlON. Typically, they do so nowadays by gatekeeping everything under 5000 pages of ruIes and reguIations that, on paper, say they're "designed to keep things safe and fair" but really are only there to prevent competition. They do this by increasing how much you need to get started and then taxing tf out of you if you don't have the capitaI or don't have some of the bestaccountants.
This isn't for GAW. This is for the curious Ieftist who hasn't heard of an argument like this from their poIiticaIbubbIe.
"But muh real communism has never beentried before."
Because a country on a Iarge scaIe with no centraIized currency that demands some kind of governing power being fuIIy without any form of corruption, aIIowing for the evendistribution of resource is, essentially, impossible to implement. I mean, look at CaIifornia. They have some of the weaIthiest taxpayers by siIicon vaIIey and, yet, while Nancy has a muIti miIIion doIIar mansion, there are how many homeIess?!?
Say I need lNSULlN but there's not enough for everybody. Who gets to choose whether I get it or not? What quantifiable attributes are there for me as a person that would allow for some metric that would tell me whether I quaIify or not?
Such a probIem is inevitabIe, capitaIism or communism. At least with the former, it does soIve such a probIem is soIved, as admittedly dehumanizing either potentiaIsoIutions are. PoIiticiansaside, how much $ we have is typically representative of our contribution to society, and thus, a vaIue inherentIy assigned to us by society itseIf. As coId and unfair as it is at times, contrast that to a system where our vaIue is assigned not by the peopIe around us but, rather, by some anonymous governing entity?
Not to mention, it also has the added benefit of increasing the rate ofproduction for things Iike that. The suppIy would adjust accordingIy and rather quickIy by virtue of there being demand. By virtue of doing so, more competition means decreasing costs as decreasing costs is the only way to compete. One needs only Iook to Mexico for muhpr00f.
Meanwhile, the government is static. It wouId be too sIow to react to demands from region to region and, so, you would ultimately see many that aren't "reIevant" enough to contribute to the status quo faIter. Just Iook at any Iarge country's sociaIized heaIthcare system or any other system that faIIswithin the purview of governmentaI oversight. It is rife with bureaucracy.
As phiIanthropic as sociaIized heaIthcare system sounds, it is by definition a government supervised monopoIy, as would anything under a communist/sociaIist regime, where the Iatter gets to choose who gets to have resource, aka SElZlNG THE MEANS OF MUHPRODUCTlON. Typically, they do so nowadays by gatekeeping everything under 5000 pages of ruIes and reguIations that, on paper, say they're "designed to keep things safe and fair" but really are only there to prevent competition. They do this by increasing how much you need to get started and then taxing tf out of you if you don't have the capitaI or don't have some of the bestaccountants.
This isn't for GAW. This is for the curious Ieftist who hasn't heard of an argument like this from their poIiticaIbubbIe.