Gregory's ServerWhat you're describing, redistributing resources to the poor, has been tried and has failed at eliminating capitalist exploitation, and that is because capitalist exploitation derives from the private ownership of the means of production and the extraction of surplus value from workers by capitalist and corporations, and those aspects are integral to capitalism, and thus, if the elimination of capitalist exploitation is the desired goal, the elimination of capitalism is necessary.
|
5 comments
The corruption and dictatorship would be much worse with capitalism than socialism. Little has to be said about the corruptions and authoritarianism of the capitalist state; its existence is a well-known fact. With a capitalist state, all economic and social interests are centered around personal gain (for the capitalists, not the workers). In a socialist state, all economic and social interests are centered around collective gain. 1/3 Both capitalist and socialist states are susceptible of corruption and dictatorship, but the former (capitalism) would be far worse for the majority of people and only benefit the ruling rich capitalist class, whereas the later (socialism) would benefit the majority of society far better due to its emphasis on collective benefit and well-being, so... 2/3 ...even in the worst case scenario where a socialist state were to become corrupt, etc, it would still be far better than the worst case scenario of a capitalist state becoming corrupt, etc, so socialism is still the preferred option here. 3/3 |
@Radical_EgoCom but a private initiative is necessary, otherwise you would have to put everything in the hands of a state but the risk of dictatorship/corruption is high. in my opinion we should stay in the middle and just change the rules. in a gradual process of social metamorphosis.