What level of wealth is too much to allow, and how did you come to that conclusion? Why does this take priority over the scientific basis of socializing production and leveraging markets to accelerate this process?
I mean we cap it at billion. I’d be fine with capping it at much lower too but not allowing someone to hoard billions off the work of other people is at least achievable goal.
It’s bad because there’s no wealth like that without exploitation. And in a billion, there’s shitload of exploitation. More of the profits should go to the workers and not feeding some megawealthy elite.
How did you come to that conclusion? It seems like it’s just vibes, which is my point. Your conclusion that China isn’t doing enough is arbitrary, not scientific.
Why does this take priority over the scientific basis of socializing production and leveraging markets to accelerate this process?
You are making an arbitrary, moralist argument, not an argument based on what’s best for the people of China. It’s an argument based on perceived purity, not science, and as such it falls into the same trappings as the Gang of Four.
The problem with an argument based on “purity” is that we wind back at the Gang of Four, you are fetishizing shared poverty rather than an uplfiting of the working classes. Collective poverty is more “pure” to you and is therefore better. The existence of billionaires is there because of the existence of private property, and private property exists due to the socialization effects of markets for lesser developed industries.
By arbitrarily picking the “1 billion” figure, which doesn’t exist for concrete reasons but instead vibes, you are making the judgment that China isn’t pure because it doesn’t tax enough. Billionaires are not qualitatively different from those with hundreds of millions of dollars, they are both capitalists. The capitalist class itself is being undermined by socialist construction in China, and the working classes are benefiting. You are valuing purity in a religious sense over concrete improvements in the lives of the working classes.
The working class would benefit a lot more of some of that billion was given to the actual workers instead of fattening up some wealthy capitalist’s bank account tbh.
I don’t know what the purity thing is you’re talking about, exactly. Isn’t China a mixed economy?
China already taxes them. Your argument is essentially that the level of taxation is not enough for you, based on nothing except your personal issue with the “billionaire” label. If China taxed at higher rates, this would not qualitatively transform the mode of production and distribution. This is why I say you are focused on “purity,” you’re fixating on what you percieve to be a “blemish” based on nothing but vibes. That’s why I asked why you came up with “1 billion” as the limit, and the only answer you could give was “it sounds bad.”
It’s not the label, it’s the literal amount of wealth and exploitation that entails and how that should be the worker’s wealth, not some one rich person’s.
I don’t care what name or label you use for it. The physical reality is what matters. Not to mention I would have been happy to cap it even earlier lol
What level of wealth is too much to allow, and how did you come to that conclusion? Why does this take priority over the scientific basis of socializing production and leveraging markets to accelerate this process?
I mean we cap it at billion. I’d be fine with capping it at much lower too but not allowing someone to hoard billions off the work of other people is at least achievable goal.
It’s bad because there’s no wealth like that without exploitation. And in a billion, there’s shitload of exploitation. More of the profits should go to the workers and not feeding some megawealthy elite.
But that’s just my take.
You didn’t answer my questions:
How did you come to that conclusion? It seems like it’s just vibes, which is my point. Your conclusion that China isn’t doing enough is arbitrary, not scientific.
Why does this take priority over the scientific basis of socializing production and leveraging markets to accelerate this process?
You are making an arbitrary, moralist argument, not an argument based on what’s best for the people of China. It’s an argument based on perceived purity, not science, and as such it falls into the same trappings as the Gang of Four.
\1. It is a moral take, yeah. Exploitation of worker’s to such degree that you are able to hoard billions is bad imo.
And it’s not just about China but same goes for everywhere.
\2. I don’t believe in your the factuality of your scientific basis for billionaires being necessary. It’s akin to all the trickle downs and whatnot.
The problem with an argument based on “purity” is that we wind back at the Gang of Four, you are fetishizing shared poverty rather than an uplfiting of the working classes. Collective poverty is more “pure” to you and is therefore better. The existence of billionaires is there because of the existence of private property, and private property exists due to the socialization effects of markets for lesser developed industries.
By arbitrarily picking the “1 billion” figure, which doesn’t exist for concrete reasons but instead vibes, you are making the judgment that China isn’t pure because it doesn’t tax enough. Billionaires are not qualitatively different from those with hundreds of millions of dollars, they are both capitalists. The capitalist class itself is being undermined by socialist construction in China, and the working classes are benefiting. You are valuing purity in a religious sense over concrete improvements in the lives of the working classes.
The working class would benefit a lot more of some of that billion was given to the actual workers instead of fattening up some wealthy capitalist’s bank account tbh.
I don’t know what the purity thing is you’re talking about, exactly. Isn’t China a mixed economy?
China already taxes them. Your argument is essentially that the level of taxation is not enough for you, based on nothing except your personal issue with the “billionaire” label. If China taxed at higher rates, this would not qualitatively transform the mode of production and distribution. This is why I say you are focused on “purity,” you’re fixating on what you percieve to be a “blemish” based on nothing but vibes. That’s why I asked why you came up with “1 billion” as the limit, and the only answer you could give was “it sounds bad.”
It’s not the label, it’s the literal amount of wealth and exploitation that entails and how that should be the worker’s wealth, not some one rich person’s.
I don’t care what name or label you use for it. The physical reality is what matters. Not to mention I would have been happy to cap it even earlier lol
Why 1 billion specifically, and not the current level of taxation? Why 1 billion in USD? This is an arbitrary argument.