• 3 Posts
  • 76 Comments
Joined 8 months ago
cake
Cake day: June 4th, 2025

help-circle










  • In it, she states clearly that reforms are not fundamentally in opposition to revolution

    Very good point. I guess the ideal is reform that furthers revolution, culturally or materially. Something that delivers more control to the people and the workers.

    I’m not sure to what end a wealth tax

    The wealth tax is admittedly the less thought out and generally worse idea, but leveraging that tax to buy out capital would in essence be a seizure of billionaires funds to then deliver industry capital to the workers control

    tax which attempts to convert more companies into so called nonprofits

    My thought wasn’t so much converting them to nonprofits, but implementing a tax designed to lead to worker ownership. Costs escalate the more important the business is, gauged roughly by how many people it employs and can be addressed by increasing the number of people power over the company is distributed between.

    The thought was to drive a natural lifecycle in which enterprising individuals could begin ventures that they think will make the world better or that they think can sustain themselves without a tax burden, but once you employ more than yourself you begin to pay tax for being the sole controller. Its a reform idea to softly push in the direction of democratized workplaces where every worker has an equal say, but also allow a vision to be established by an individual unhindered. With increased employee ownership, hopefully the imperialist aggression would also abate when there is lower incentive to colonize a people, but imperialism wasn’t in the forefront when I was thinking about this.












  • Not disagreeing this guys ‘touch grass’ is not helpful or useful, but it is also very clearly not ad hominem. Ad hominem is a logical fallacy and involves using an arguers characteristics to try and cast doubt on their logical argument. Its a fallacy because even if someone who doesn’t understand what they’re saying gives a logical argument the argument is no less correct for not being understood. Telling someone to touch grass is an imperative statement, and while hostile and rude, does not constitute ad hominem.