Test for the rightwing: tell me the differences between the far left and the moderate left

[Kosh]

I would prefer a society without capitalism, or more so, private ownership of production for the profit of an individual, I want a society where production is tailored to the needs of the people, by the people, through democratic control. Income distribution? Progressive taxation, if the abstract value of money still exists. A wealthy class? I want everyone to be fed, sheltered, clothed, given access to healthcare.. If you refer to wealthy as material ownership, sure, that would still exist, but in reference to one owning billions while millions struggle to feed themselves? No, that wouldn't exist.

Ok so the state would own the market? Wouldn't it not be feasible that the state could pay for a wealthy class and be the only source of revenue for the country? I am all for more socialization in our current state and keeping money out of politics, but the idea of not having a private market doesn't seem realistic.

The state would not own the market, the market would be utilized as a tool to provide for the people, not for profit. I don't see how the state would do that if the people had control of it and capitalists weren't running rampant. Of course private markets would still exist, nothing is perfect.

But you must admit that profit is critical for having a sustainable economy. There would have to be individuals benefiting from it and becoming more wealthy. This allows them to produce, We need a profiting wealthy class. I would, of course, just suggest that there be ironclad caps on personal wealth and there must be laws guaranteeing fair wages for the lower classes.

The entire concept of "profit" wouldn't be relevant in a socialist framework, nor would the concept of wealth in reference to abstract value.

The only difference between Socialism and Capitalism is the Government owns Industry in Socialism. The people still run it either way.

Look at Austrailia. Home of Faux News founder Rupert Merdoch.

You can still buy politicians in Austrailia Socialism. The only thing that changed is the amount of power Politicians have.

Seems the focus should be more against politician pay-off's. Not our entire way of life.

And here is one demonstrating they do not understand the keyword terms that they use. Just to try and prove that they are not "anti" party.

A better example would have been the Obama stimulus and how all the major donors got their money plus some to recycle through the legal money laundering system into the DNC.

 

[kaz]

I want you to name specific issues regarding the differences between more liberal polices and centrist policies. Don't give me some vague paragraph of fluff. I want specifics. Deconstruct the political issues and compare and contrast. A bonus would be naming leftwing politicians and breaking down their platforms.

Lets break this down even more. Compare more radical progressive polices to more moderate ones in regards to economics, social issues, and the role of government.

I predict that most of you can't rise to the occasion on this test of mine.

There is no moderate left, you are all whack jobs

Exactly.

If you are referring to everyone on the left wing as whack jobs, and you yourself are agreeing with it, that is truly a sad thing to do. I will never drop down to such a level, if you want to ignore the contributions of the actual left wing throughout the world, and in America, be my guest, but no other political movement has contributed more to social progress, working class representation, women's rights, gay rights, social security, medicare, medicaid, universal healthcare in many other countries, free education for children, food stamps for the elderly, overtime rights, the minimum wage... The right wing?

Notice nowhere in there do you actually give any difference between moderate and extreme left.

Here's a simple question: Name a few moderate left Democrats and extreme left Democrats and a few issues that separate them

 

[kaz]

I want you to name specific issues regarding the differences between more liberal polices and centrist policies. Don't give me some vague paragraph of fluff. I want specifics. Deconstruct the political issues and compare and contrast. A bonus would be naming leftwing politicians and breaking down their platforms.

Lets break this down even more. Compare more radical progressive polices to more moderate ones in regards to economics, social issues, and the role of government.

I predict that most of you can't rise to the occasion on this test of mine.

There is no moderate left, you are all whack jobs

Exactly.

If you are referring to everyone on the left wing as whack jobs, and you yourself are agreeing with it, that is truly a sad thing to do. I will never drop down to such a level, if you want to ignore the contributions of the actual left wing throughout the world, and in America, be my guest, but no other political movement has contributed more to social progress, working class representation, women's rights, gay rights, social security, medicare, medicaid, universal healthcare in many other countries, free education for children, food stamps for the elderly, overtime rights, the minimum wage... The right wing?

Left wingers have no integrity. They will lie, cheat and steal to get what they want and they don't care who they hurt in the process.

I have no respect for them. None.

I could say the same for all right wingers, but I'm not a dishonest, desperate person who is not interested in intelligent discussion. You throw in the word "steal," which is quite funny, have any examples? If you wish left wing thought never existed, fine, go back to your primitive times when child labor was all the rage, when women were like cattle, when theocracy was seen as a great option, when labor was crushed under the foot of capital interests (That's happened again..)

"You throw in the word "steal," which is quite funny, have any examples?"

All government redistribution of wealth is government theft or they wouldn't need to use the force of guns to do it

 

[francoHFW]

Ok so the state would own the market? Wouldn't it not be feasible that the state could pay for a wealthy class and be the only source of revenue for the country? I am all for more socialization in our current state and keeping money out of politics, but the idea of not having a private market doesn't seem realistic.

The state would not own the market, the market would be utilized as a tool to provide for the people, not for profit. I don't see how the state would do that if the people had control of it and capitalists weren't running rampant. Of course private markets would still exist, nothing is perfect.

But you must admit that profit is critical for having a sustainable economy. There would have to be individuals benefiting from it and becoming more wealthy. This allows them to produce, We need a profiting wealthy class. I would, of course, just suggest that there be ironclad caps on personal wealth and there must be laws guaranteeing fair wages for the lower classes.

The entire concept of "profit" wouldn't be relevant in a socialist framework, nor would the concept of wealth in reference to abstract value.

The only difference between Socialism and Capitalism is the Government owns Industry in Socialism. The people still run it either way.

Look at Austrailia. Home of Faux News founder Rupert Merdoch.

You can still buy politicians in Austrailia Socialism. The only thing that changed is the amount of power Politicians have.

Seems the focus should be more against politician pay-off's. Not our entire way of life.

And here is one demonstrating they do not understand the keyword terms that they use. Just to try and prove that they are not "anti" party.

A better example would have been the Obama stimulus and how all the major donors got their money plus some to recycle through the legal money laundering system into the DNC.

Hey, as a member of the "Far Right", I am all for violence against anarchists and reds like you who want to implement revolution, just don't pretend you aren't using force and implementing a totalitarian society to pursue your ends.

LOL at an "anarcho-socialist" telling people to grow up.

I don't advocate violent revolution, however, if the conditions are of that in a place like Bangladesh, violent revolution is what must occur. In america or another first world country? Violent revolution is only feasible if the revolutionary conditions reach a certain point. "Totalitarian society" Back to the paris commune, the free ukraine, catalonia.. Yeah, capitalist societies run by capitalists aren't totalitarian.

See, you are all over the place, you claim to be against the state, but want to use it the control the means of production in the mean time, you oppose violent revolution against property owners, but are willing to use it to achieve your ends when you support failed "anarcho-socialist" societies the paris commune, "free ukraine" and "free catalonia" (except for property owners, clergy, and political opponents).

Just have some balls and admit that if we aren't willing to voluntarily hand over the means of production, you are willing to use the state and/or violent revolution to achieve your ends. Be honest, so us fascists can have you on our shit list for the labor camps.

So you've admitted you're a fascist. /thread Think what you want, learn to comprehend my posts first.

I comprehend your posts, you are a walking contradiction as is your entire ideology, a confused kid that hasn't gotten beyond past first grade level morality of "share with me, its not fair he has more, were all equal, blah blah blah", and giving examples of failed and tyrannical societies as some blueprint for the future.

Keep spewing unfounded rhetoric.

Debs is an anachronism, at least as far as doing away with rent and profit and having cooperative ownership of industry in general,- that's communism and doesn't work, we know today. Since the USSR was decoded about 1935-47, Communism is seen as always totalitarian and put in by violence, socialism as always democratic. Now carry on fellas- play nice.

 

[Correll]

I want you to name specific issues regarding the differences between more liberal polices and centrist policies. Don't give me some vague paragraph of fluff. I want specifics. Deconstruct the political issues and compare and contrast. A bonus would be naming leftwing politicians and breaking down their platforms.

Lets break this down even more. Compare more radical progressive polices to more moderate ones in regards to economics, social issues, and the role of government.

I predict that most of you can't rise to the occasion on this test of mine.

Here some professionals did what you suggested.


Born This Way - Reason.com


"Crossing the Divide

The two narratives are as opposed as they could be. Can partisans even understand the story told by the other side? The obstacles to empathy are not symmetrical. There is no foundation used by the left that is not also used by the right. Even though conservatives score slightly lower on measures of empathy and may therefore be less moved by a story about suffering and oppression, they can still recognize that it is awful to be kept in chains. And even though many conservatives opposed some of the great liberations of the 20th century—of women, sweatshop workers, African Americans, and gay people—they have applauded others, such as the liberation of Eastern Europe from communist oppression.

But when liberals try to understand the Reagan narrative, they have a harder time. When I speak to liberal audiences about the three “binding” foundations—loyalty, authority, and sanctity—I find that many in the audience don’t just fail to resonate; they actively reject these concerns as immoral. Loyalty to a group shrinks the moral circle; it is the basis of racism and exclusion, they say. Authority is oppression. Sanctity is religious mumbo-jumbo whose only function is to suppress female sexuality and justify homophobia.

In a study I conducted with colleagues Jesse Graham and Brian Nosek, we tested how well liberals and conservatives could understand each other. We asked more than 2,000 American visitors to fill out the Moral Foundations Questionnaire. One-third of the time they were asked to fill it out normally, answering as themselves. One-third of the time they were asked to fill it out as they think a “typical liberal” would respond. One-third of the time they were asked to fill it out as a “typical conservative” would respond. This design allowed us to examine the stereotypes that each side held about the other. More important, it allowed us to assess how accurate they were by comparing people’s expectations about “typical” partisans to the actual responses from partisans on the left and the right. Who was best able to pretend to be the other?

The results were clear and consistent. Moderates and conservatives were most accurate in their predictions, whether they were pretending to be liberals or conservatives. Liberals were the least accurate, especially those who described themselves as “very liberal.” The biggest errors in the whole study came when liberals answered the care and fairness questions while pretending to be conservatives. When faced with statements such as “one of the worst things a person could do is hurt a defenseless animal” or “justice is the most important requirement for a society,” liberals assumed that conservatives would disagree. If you have a moral matrix built primarily on intuitions about care and fairness (as equality), and you listen to the Reagan narrative, what else could you think? Reagan seems completely unconcerned about the welfare of drug addicts, poor people, and gay people. He is more interested in fighting wars and telling people how to run their sex lives.

If you don’t see that Reagan is pursuing positive values of loyalty, authority, and sanctity, you almost have to conclude that Republicans see no positive value in care and fairness. You might even go as far as Michael Feingold, a theater critic for the liberal weekly The Village Voice, when he wrote in 2004: “Republicans don’t believe in the imagination, partly because so few of them have one, but mostly because it gets in the way of their chosen work, which is to destroy the human race and the planet.…Which is why I personally think they should be exterminated before they cause any more harm.” One of the many ironies in this quotation is that it shows the inability of a theater critic—who skillfully enters fantastical imaginary worlds for a living—to imagine that Republicans act within a moral matrix that differs from his own."

 

[OKTexas]

I would love to see a society that has gotten past the point of having a state, but that's a pipe dream not possible in today's context. I think the platform of eugene debs is what I am looking at, I want workers to own production, I am a strong advocate of worker co-ops, welfare, universal healthcare, free education, putting labor into power, I want to remove the influence capitalists have on the state, I want the state, if it exists, to be controlled by the working class through democracy. Outlining an entire plan for a state in a forum post is quite difficult,

So would you prefer capitalism so long as it did not influence the state? What would be the income distribution? Would there be any wealthy class?

I would prefer a society without capitalism, or more so, private ownership of production for the profit of an individual, I want a society where production is tailored to the needs of the people, by the people, through democratic control. Income distribution? Progressive taxation, if the abstract value of money still exists. A wealthy class? I want everyone to be fed, sheltered, clothed, given access to healthcare.. If you refer to wealthy as material ownership, sure, that would still exist, but in reference to one owning billions while millions struggle to feed themselves? No, that wouldn't exist.

Ok so the state would own the market? Wouldn't it not be feasible that the state could pay for a wealthy class and be the only source of revenue for the country? I am all for more socialization in our current state and keeping money out of politics, but the idea of not having a private market doesn't seem realistic.

The state would not own the market, the market would be utilized as a tool to provide for the people, not for profit. I don't see how the state would do that if the people had control of it and capitalists weren't running rampant. Of course private markets would still exist, nothing is perfect.

But you must admit that profit is critical for having a sustainable economy. There would have to be individuals benefiting from it and becoming more wealthy. This allows them to produce, We need a profiting wealthy class. I would, of course, just suggest that there be ironclad caps on personal wealth and there must be laws guaranteeing fair wages for the lower classes.

So you want the government to control the markets? Keep in mind that labor is a commodity, you can't control it without controlling other commodities.

 

[OKTexas]

So would you prefer capitalism so long as it did not influence the state? What would be the income distribution? Would there be any wealthy class?

I would prefer a society without capitalism, or more so, private ownership of production for the profit of an individual, I want a society where production is tailored to the needs of the people, by the people, through democratic control. Income distribution? Progressive taxation, if the abstract value of money still exists. A wealthy class? I want everyone to be fed, sheltered, clothed, given access to healthcare.. If you refer to wealthy as material ownership, sure, that would still exist, but in reference to one owning billions while millions struggle to feed themselves? No, that wouldn't exist.

Ok so the state would own the market? Wouldn't it not be feasible that the state could pay for a wealthy class and be the only source of revenue for the country? I am all for more socialization in our current state and keeping money out of politics, but the idea of not having a private market doesn't seem realistic.

The state would not own the market, the market would be utilized as a tool to provide for the people, not for profit. I don't see how the state would do that if the people had control of it and capitalists weren't running rampant. Of course private markets would still exist, nothing is perfect.

But you must admit that profit is critical for having a sustainable economy. There would have to be individuals benefiting from it and becoming more wealthy. This allows them to produce, We need a profiting wealthy class. I would, of course, just suggest that there be ironclad caps on personal wealth and there must be laws guaranteeing fair wages for the lower classes.

The entire concept of "profit" wouldn't be relevant in a socialist framework, nor would the concept of wealth in reference to abstract value.

So you think you can alter human nature, what a fool.

 

[Billy000]

So would you prefer capitalism so long as it did not influence the state? What would be the income distribution? Would there be any wealthy class?

I would prefer a society without capitalism, or more so, private ownership of production for the profit of an individual, I want a society where production is tailored to the needs of the people, by the people, through democratic control. Income distribution? Progressive taxation, if the abstract value of money still exists. A wealthy class? I want everyone to be fed, sheltered, clothed, given access to healthcare.. If you refer to wealthy as material ownership, sure, that would still exist, but in reference to one owning billions while millions struggle to feed themselves? No, that wouldn't exist.

Ok so the state would own the market? Wouldn't it not be feasible that the state could pay for a wealthy class and be the only source of revenue for the country? I am all for more socialization in our current state and keeping money out of politics, but the idea of not having a private market doesn't seem realistic.

The state would not own the market, the market would be utilized as a tool to provide for the people, not for profit. I don't see how the state would do that if the people had control of it and capitalists weren't running rampant. Of course private markets would still exist, nothing is perfect.

But you must admit that profit is critical for having a sustainable economy. There would have to be individuals benefiting from it and becoming more wealthy. This allows them to produce, We need a profiting wealthy class. I would, of course, just suggest that there be ironclad caps on personal wealth and there must be laws guaranteeing fair wages for the lower classes.

So you want the government to control the markets? Keep in mind that labor is a commodity, you can't control it without controlling other commodities.

I want a private economic system that is highly regulated.

 

[Billy000]

There is no moderate left, you are all whack jobs

Exactly.

If you are referring to everyone on the left wing as whack jobs, and you yourself are agreeing with it, that is truly a sad thing to do. I will never drop down to such a level, if you want to ignore the contributions of the actual left wing throughout the world, and in America, be my guest, but no other political movement has contributed more to social progress, working class representation, women's rights, gay rights, social security, medicare, medicaid, universal healthcare in many other countries, free education for children, food stamps for the elderly, overtime rights, the minimum wage... The right wing?

Left wingers have no integrity. They will lie, cheat and steal to get what they want and they don't care who they hurt in the process.

I have no respect for them. None.

I could say the same for all right wingers, but I'm not a dishonest, desperate person who is not interested in intelligent discussion. You throw in the word "steal," which is quite funny, have any examples? If you wish left wing thought never existed, fine, go back to your primitive times when child labor was all the rage, when women were like cattle, when theocracy was seen as a great option, when labor was crushed under the foot of capital interests (That's happened again..)

"You throw in the word "steal," which is quite funny, have any examples?"

All government redistribution of wealth is government theft or they wouldn't need to use the force of guns to do it

How has the government made any sort of attempt to redistribute wealth?

 

[kaz]

Exactly.

If you are referring to everyone on the left wing as whack jobs, and you yourself are agreeing with it, that is truly a sad thing to do. I will never drop down to such a level, if you want to ignore the contributions of the actual left wing throughout the world, and in America, be my guest, but no other political movement has contributed more to social progress, working class representation, women's rights, gay rights, social security, medicare, medicaid, universal healthcare in many other countries, free education for children, food stamps for the elderly, overtime rights, the minimum wage... The right wing?

Left wingers have no integrity. They will lie, cheat and steal to get what they want and they don't care who they hurt in the process.

I have no respect for them. None.

I could say the same for all right wingers, but I'm not a dishonest, desperate person who is not interested in intelligent discussion. You throw in the word "steal," which is quite funny, have any examples? If you wish left wing thought never existed, fine, go back to your primitive times when child labor was all the rage, when women were like cattle, when theocracy was seen as a great option, when labor was crushed under the foot of capital interests (That's happened again..)

"You throw in the word "steal," which is quite funny, have any examples?"

All government redistribution of wealth is government theft or they wouldn't need to use the force of guns to do it

How has the government made any sort of attempt to redistribute wealth?

Social Security, medicare, food stamps, AFDC, earmarks, ...

 

[Billy000]

If you are referring to everyone on the left wing as whack jobs, and you yourself are agreeing with it, that is truly a sad thing to do. I will never drop down to such a level, if you want to ignore the contributions of the actual left wing throughout the world, and in America, be my guest, but no other political movement has contributed more to social progress, working class representation, women's rights, gay rights, social security, medicare, medicaid, universal healthcare in many other countries, free education for children, food stamps for the elderly, overtime rights, the minimum wage... The right wing?

Left wingers have no integrity. They will lie, cheat and steal to get what they want and they don't care who they hurt in the process.

I have no respect for them. None.

I could say the same for all right wingers, but I'm not a dishonest, desperate person who is not interested in intelligent discussion. You throw in the word "steal," which is quite funny, have any examples? If you wish left wing thought never existed, fine, go back to your primitive times when child labor was all the rage, when women were like cattle, when theocracy was seen as a great option, when labor was crushed under the foot of capital interests (That's happened again..)

"You throw in the word "steal," which is quite funny, have any examples?"

All government redistribution of wealth is government theft or they wouldn't need to use the force of guns to do it

How has the government made any sort of attempt to redistribute wealth?

Social Security, medicare, food stamps, AFDC, earmarks, ...

Social security and Medicare covers a wide range of people from the disabled to the elderly. Food stamps cost a mere 70 billion per year.

 

[kaz]

Left wingers have no integrity. They will lie, cheat and steal to get what they want and they don't care who they hurt in the process.

I have no respect for them. None.

I could say the same for all right wingers, but I'm not a dishonest, desperate person who is not interested in intelligent discussion. You throw in the word "steal," which is quite funny, have any examples? If you wish left wing thought never existed, fine, go back to your primitive times when child labor was all the rage, when women were like cattle, when theocracy was seen as a great option, when labor was crushed under the foot of capital interests (That's happened again..)

"You throw in the word "steal," which is quite funny, have any examples?"

All government redistribution of wealth is government theft or they wouldn't need to use the force of guns to do it

How has the government made any sort of attempt to redistribute wealth?

Social Security, medicare, food stamps, AFDC, earmarks, ...

Social security and Medicare covers a wide range of people from the disabled to the elderly. Food stamps cost a mere 70 billion per year.

How much they cost doesn't change they are taking money from one citizen and giving it to another, which is wealth redistribution.

More examples are progressive taxes, tax credits, business subsidies and farm subsidies

 

[Harry Dresden]

Can none of you answer this question?

it was answered the last time you did this thread.....just like now you did not like the answers.....so here we are again....

I asked for specific examples. I'm not getting any of that.

you are asking about politicians in wash dc right?...myself i dont pay attention to what they think about.....they are all a bunch of opportunistic assholes that i vote against every election.....my examples are the people in this forum....plenty of both far left and right and moderates...BUT....that comes down to opinions too...i think dean is one of the most far left guys here,while you might think he is a conservative democrat....

 

[Harry Dresden]

I want you to name specific issues regarding the differences between more liberal polices and centrist policies. Don't give me some vague paragraph of fluff. I want specifics. Deconstruct the political issues and compare and contrast. A bonus would be naming leftwing politicians and breaking down their platforms.

Lets break this down even more. Compare more radical progressive polices to more moderate ones in regards to economics, social issues, and the role of government.

I predict that most of you can't rise to the occasion on this test of mine.

There is no moderate left, you are all whack jobs

Exactly.

If you are referring to everyone on the left wing as whack jobs, and you yourself are agreeing with it, that is truly a sad thing to do. I will never drop down to such a level, if you want to ignore the contributions of the actual left wing throughout the world, and in America, be my guest, but no other political movement has contributed more to social progress, working class representation, women's rights, gay rights, social security, medicare, medicaid, universal healthcare in many other countries, free education for children, food stamps for the elderly, overtime rights, the minimum wage... The right wing?

Left wingers have no integrity. They will lie, cheat and steal to get what they want and they don't care who they hurt in the process.

I have no respect for them. None.

like righties aint the same way?....give us a break....

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

I want you to name specific issues regarding the differences between more liberal polices and centrist policies.

There is no difference.

Regarding individuals, there is common sense and logic regarding issues among some, and conversely the lack of it among others. This applies to both sides of the political coin, of course.

One either respects the intent of the Founding Fathers in all things relating to the foundational philosophy and thought of the nation and that of the national agreement, or one does not. When changes to the Constitution are necessary or desirable, one either nods to the process mandated by the document itself and follows it, or one seeks legislation and judicial decisions to force change illegally outside of that mandate.

There is right, and there is wrong. There is no center.

 

[Harry Dresden]

I want you to name specific issues regarding the differences between more liberal polices and centrist policies. Don't give me some vague paragraph of fluff. I want specifics. Deconstruct the political issues and compare and contrast. A bonus would be naming leftwing politicians and breaking down their platforms.

Lets break this down even more. Compare more radical progressive polices to more moderate ones in regards to economics, social issues, and the role of government.

I predict that most of you can't rise to the occasion on this test of mine.

Trick question there is no moderate left.

sure there is....maybe you should try getting to know more people than just those who agree with everything you do....

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Far Left supports Stalin, Moderate Left is more for Mao and Fidel

 

[kaz]

I want you to name specific issues regarding the differences between more liberal polices and centrist policies. Don't give me some vague paragraph of fluff. I want specifics. Deconstruct the political issues and compare and contrast. A bonus would be naming leftwing politicians and breaking down their platforms.

Lets break this down even more. Compare more radical progressive polices to more moderate ones in regards to economics, social issues, and the role of government.

I predict that most of you can't rise to the occasion on this test of mine.

There is no moderate left, you are all whack jobs

Exactly.

If you are referring to everyone on the left wing as whack jobs, and you yourself are agreeing with it, that is truly a sad thing to do. I will never drop down to such a level, if you want to ignore the contributions of the actual left wing throughout the world, and in America, be my guest, but no other political movement has contributed more to social progress, working class representation, women's rights, gay rights, social security, medicare, medicaid, universal healthcare in many other countries, free education for children, food stamps for the elderly, overtime rights, the minimum wage... The right wing?

Notice nowhere in there do you actually give any difference between moderate and extreme left.

Here's a simple question: Name a few moderate left Democrats and extreme left Democrats and a few issues that separate them

Knock, knock, socialist?

 

[Harry Dresden]

all of google fucknut, all of google.

you asked a question, I gave you pinpoint answers, but you hate the truth and must deny it.

I've tried to find anything on "all of google" backing up your claims, all I find are right wing sites with paywalls and ads all over the page claiming Obama is going to put everyone in FEMA camps.

I'm curious. What is the income distribution and type of economy in the socialist state you prefer?

I would love to see a society that has gotten past the point of having a state, but that's a pipe dream not possible in today's context. I think the platform of eugene debs is what I am looking at, I want workers to own production, I am a strong advocate of worker co-ops, welfare, universal healthcare, free education, putting labor into power, I want to remove the influence capitalists have on the state, I want the state, if it exists, to be controlled by the working class through democracy. Outlining an entire plan for a state in a forum post is quite difficult,

So would you prefer capitalism so long as it did not influence the state? What would be the income distribution? Would there be any wealthy class?

I would prefer a society without capitalism, or more so, private ownership of production for the profit of an individual, I want a society where production is tailored to the needs of the people, by the people, through democratic control. Income distribution? Progressive taxation, if the abstract value of money still exists. A wealthy class? I want everyone to be fed, sheltered, clothed, given access to healthcare.. If you refer to wealthy as material ownership, sure, that would still exist, but in reference to one owning billions while millions struggle to feed themselves? No, that wouldn't exist.

so how much would one person be allowed to make?....for instance,i start a business,would i be allowed to reap what sowed?....or will i be told i cant make over X amount of dollars?...

 

[Harry Dresden]

I would love to see a society that has gotten past the point of having a state, but that's a pipe dream not possible in today's context. I think the platform of eugene debs is what I am looking at, I want workers to own production, I am a strong advocate of worker co-ops, welfare, universal healthcare, free education, putting labor into power, I want to remove the influence capitalists have on the state, I want the state, if it exists, to be controlled by the working class through democracy. Outlining an entire plan for a state in a forum post is quite difficult,

So would you prefer capitalism so long as it did not influence the state? What would be the income distribution? Would there be any wealthy class?

I would prefer a society without capitalism, or more so, private ownership of production for the profit of an individual, I want a society where production is tailored to the needs of the people, by the people, through democratic control. Income distribution? Progressive taxation, if the abstract value of money still exists. A wealthy class? I want everyone to be fed, sheltered, clothed, given access to healthcare.. If you refer to wealthy as material ownership, sure, that would still exist, but in reference to one owning billions while millions struggle to feed themselves? No, that wouldn't exist.

Ok so the state would own the market? Wouldn't it not be feasible that the state could pay for a wealthy class and be the only source of revenue for the country? I am all for more socialization in our current state and keeping money out of politics, but the idea of not having a private market doesn't seem realistic.

The state would not own the market, the market would be utilized as a tool to provide for the people, not for profit. I don't see how the state would do that if the people had control of it and capitalists weren't running rampant. Of course private markets would still exist, nothing is perfect.

But you must admit that profit is critical for having a sustainable economy. There would have to be individuals benefiting from it and becoming more wealthy. This allows them to produce, We need a profiting wealthy class. I would, of course, just suggest that there be ironclad caps on personal wealth and there must be laws guaranteeing fair wages for the lower classes.

so how wealthy will you allow a person to be Billy?.....