I don't like spending this much time arguing against campism but they just keep talking at me.

A picture of Gus Friv captioned "I'm cool with communism because I don't believe it has to be authoritarian; you're cool with communism because you don't mind if its authoritarian; we are not the same."
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 2 days ago* (2 children)

I agree with you, I believe. The difference being that the authoritarian nature be geared towards exclusively a group that is VOLUNTARILY JOINED and nothing else. If you want to own that much wealth, you get some fancy new governmental oversight and regulations. Congrats. I don't believe that that has be "authoritarian" to the VAST majority of people. Well over 95%.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 days ago (1 child)

    Totally agree but, it would have to be aggressive in our current world. They will not willingly part with their wealth.

    I'm assuming all options would be on the table for mitigating this level of greed. Obviously in an effort to get to a better society.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 2 days ago

    If the wealthy were willing to give up their wealth without the very real threat of violence against them, we would simply not be having this conversation and instead be discussing the appropriate levels of wealth with the wealthy. The existence of this debate implies that we have all - in some form or another - accepted that the wealthy need to be parted with their wealth against their will.

    To achieve a society where all are free and able to live out their potential, regardless of the labels we put on this freer society, wealth redistribution is necessary. If we say the wealthy keep their wealth then we are describing a society where only the wealthy are free.

  • source
  • parent