What is the point of redistributing large amounts of wealth from the very richest to the worse off when it will only...

What is the point of redistributing large amounts of wealth from the very richest to the worse off when it will only serve to increase consumption and thus pollution in a destabilized ecosystem? I suppose those who sell their labor would benefit from a transfer of fiat currency that ends their debts, they should not consume more however.
Aside from that the most meaningful redistribution would be to increase the lot of the poorest countries, at the expense of western middle classes. Or do you believe that communism will make pollution disappear, or that the resources are infinite?

I know that LARPing as a saviour is fun but it's time to grow up.

Other urls found in this thread:

libcom.org/files/louis-althusser-on-the-reproduction-of-capitalism.compressed.pdf

Stopped reading there. Read the FAQ.

I'm sure you can articulate your views without resorting to redirect me to somebody else's writing. You can, right?

We don't just want to redistribute wealth, we want to radically change the social systems so that the is no inequality in the first place, meaning that there would be no need to redistribute the wealth as everyone would be equal.

How is that radical change not redistribution?

Because wealth was never distributed to the bourgs in the first place

What you're describing isn't communism, but social democratic policies for capitalism. Obviously, the only way to end climate destruction is to end capitalism, but in the meantime keynesian stimulus policies and debt jubilees can ensure the general freedom and well being of the population that can lay the ground work for abolishing capital all together

Because we don't seek to redistribute capital. We seek to abolish it. No money, no property, everything held in common (except your toothbrush of course, you can keep that)

The population needs to consume less, thus to be worse off.


So there will not be consumption, maintenance and no sources of pollution? That's very nice user, mommy is proud of you.

Fresh water usage at lowest risk? But the media keeps saying it's a crisis in the making that people will start wars over in the future.

Then again, it is the media.

We want communism, not just to stop pollution.

No matter how harsh neoliberal policies the ruling class enacts, consumption will not slow down enough to save the enviroment under capitalism. This is because capitalism relies on the consumption of the goods and services it produces, it simply cannot survive people consuming radically less. Wealth redistribution can on the other hand ensure that people free themselves from debt traps and can start affording things such as higher education and health care. Stop being such a classcuck

How are you going to stop pollution?

I had to substitute "consuming more" for "affording things" to make it more digestible to you.

K, I'm out for a walk to enjoy some greenery before first worlders like you take it from my cold, dead hands. You are allowed to embarass yourself further until I return.

What are you trying to say?

Communists make pretend to have solutions for the coming ecological collapse but they really don't.

I don't give a flying fuck about pollution.
99% of people want to stop pollution, if workers could actually control their own workplaces then pollution most likely wouldn't be an issue
the reason we have pollution is because exploiting landowners want to make profit as quick as possible.

unironically google bookhchin

Communists are the only ones who have a solution. Any other solitions than abolishing capital are merely ways to manage the slow death of mankind

It's certainly much more feasible to stop pollution by not being bound to the logic of capital, instead of trying to take pleasure in suffering under the yoke of a dying society, nazifriend.

Don't worry, neocon OP has a solution. Just make people poor so they don't buy stuff any more. It's fool proof

The only solution is mass global genocide and depopulation and eugenics. You want to bring first world consumption to the rest of the world and make pretend ecological problems will sort themselves out because your Apple MacBooks are no longer designed under planned obsolescence principles. You are lolcows.

I don't think so, nazifriend, afterall, your masters could benefit from some of that cheap labour :^)

He made a macbook joke, looks like we're done everybody. You see this BO shutdown the board its been BTFO'd

His masters could have cheap labour from him or from machines.

Think of it like a flow of money/resources. Like blood in your circulatory system or water in the water cycle. In capitalism it's set up so the blood/water flows disproportionately to certain places because of how things are structured. The point is to change the structure so it flows more evenly. Blocked arteries or tall mountains keep the liquid from reaching certain places and increases the amount/pressure in other places.

Except even in your body, blood/water flow disproportionately to certainly places and that is perfectly natural.

In fact, you would break your own body if your blood is evenly distributed.

That's not a good allegory.

If it's 1:1 it's no longer a metaphor. The point is to illustrate the difference between a static situation (who has how much wealth atm) versus the process that produces the situation. Feel free to come up with a better metaphor.

A metaphor should at least makes sense.

You are using a positive example (blood is not evenly distributed in order for your body to function) to make a negative point (capitalism does not distribute things evenly). That's not adequate and actually detrimental to your point.

Fucking read Marx, faggot

Does your mom know you hold these views user

Ah yes, the Holla Forums intellectual.


A socialist economy will reduce itself to sustainable levels and never grow beyond them?

stop being fucking illiterate you dumbass

cry me a river

Yes.

Do you believe first world middle classmen are going to willingly reduce their consumption? Nobody will demand more?


Not sure what you mean, since you admit you desire a redistribution of wealth or income in the latter part of your post.

by abolishing capitalism there is no way to anyone is going to be able to pocket the value created by others

so you're a brainlet, got it

Nazi posters are always so metal - every solution of theirs results in a genocide.

Abolishing capitalism does not entail redistribution?

sure, tell me how do you redistribute something that doesn't exist anymore

There is no wealth in communism?

Not the user you're replying to but yes, this will be necessary to save the enviroment. It would probably require lowering the living standards for some western countries and severely limiting our consumption of physical goods. Non-growth or de-growth is impossible under capitalism, as it is literally a system which requires endless growth. The enviromental mess we're in right is what happens when a system requiring endless growth gets implemented on a finite planet.

define wealth, also i am not a communist

There would be the wealth of non-alienation and freedom senpai

Time to backpedal, uh? You need to address your porn overuse user, you won't get anywhere in life if you stay like that.

Valuable possesions or resources, how about that?

Time to say dumb shit uh?
valuable possessions are not necessarily wealth, you might hold something avluable bthat everyone else finds usesless
Resources by themselves are not wealt, if a resource is not useful within the current mode of production, it wouldn't have any wealth, by abolishing capitalism, the mode of production that would follow wouldn't need to horde massive amounts of resources to begin with

No, it's capital. Socialism isn't about everyone earning the same, it's about eliminating capital

Keep dodging my question or someone might notice you had an overxcited teenie knee-jerk reaction to something you don't like. Discovered semantics last thursday?

Oh, so workers and capitalists see the means of production as useless, they must be pretty silly, aren't they?

So those minerals won't be needed? Can I use the petroleum you'd use otherwise?

Checks out, frogposter.

Capitalism didn't work, communism didn't work, nationalism didn't work, and none of the other "isms" worked. There is no system that the elites cannot subvert and control.
I took the blackpill years ago.

nope, you simply do not have the theoretical background to understand this, which is why I told you to read books

here, have this one
libcom.org/files/louis-althusser-on-the-reproduction-of-capitalism.compressed.pdf

it specifically shows what a mode of production is, which is they key subject here, a resource is not valuable by itself.

means of production do not have value, they create value, and in the bourgy sense, they have price

you are conflicting value with price, classic newfag mistake

they will, however the concept of private property will hopefully be forgotten
yes, would you be able to appropriate it? hopefully not once capitalism is eliminated

Checks out, frogposter.

I am literally not stupid enough to understand what type of fallacy you are using here, what exactly are you trying to communicate, brainlet?

"So those minerals won't be needed?"
So marxism does entail redistribution, good to know.

This your brain on sophism.

So, a car factory has no value, cars do, changing the economic system so people who had more cars have less and the people who had less have more or some people use cars less so others live in better circumstances than they would otherwise is somehow not redistribution?

Will the ratio of petroleum use in first world countries to petroleum use in third world countries change after transition to socialism?

You don't read enough.

holy fucking SHIT

redistribution, which literally means distributing again, is not what we are trying to achieve, by "distributing again", we can understand how the same proprietor laws would be applied, as we are doing the same operation as before, simply distributing the existing objects of labour

this is not the goal, a key element must be eliminating the bourgy idea of private property, there is no redistribution here. people would not own a more fair share of the cake so to speak

this is the key difference, either you are too dumb to understand this, or too butthurt to accept it

feel free to explain how a mean of production has value, go ahead

but you just said this is sophism?? or do you actually understand it is not sophism and you just needed to vent your anger :v)??

because they have labour embodied in them and because they satisfy a social necessity, however this social necessity is an specific one, delimited by our current mode of production. who knows if cars will have value once capitalism is abolished

nope

who knows, again, you are still looking at things within the current mode of production, one which determines petroleum is an absolute necessity

literal projection lol, this is coming from the idiot that thinks wealth redistribution eliminates the law of value

Maybe I should dump some motivational posters, round speech and pleasant platitudes seems to be the only things you are able to comprehend.

Who knows, the future is completely unknowable everything is in the eye of the beholder, yes, a typical sophist. I won't waste more time on you.

For your information, you can't even tell when I'm quoting you and you mispell badly. I recommend you to read something other than the sophist garbage that is the staple of your diet. I'm sorry, but you come across as demented, it was downright unpleasant interacting with you. There is discourse beyond stretching definitions the way you like them, it sadly seems to be beyond your reach at this point.

this guy is having a total meltdown top kek, all because he is literally unable to understand simple concepts

this is why you educate your kids, so they don't end up like the this guy

oh, and just for the record, you have still not been able to answer this

who'd've seen that coming?

He is sort of right though even if he made his point through an autistic meltdown, leftypol has zero understanding of value theory.

as if he had any, remember he even used the term "wealth" instead

Man made ideologies are always bound to fail, only trough unshakable faith and submission to Allah (swt) we will be able to achieve better world by implementing Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) word into practice.

Reminder that nazis and liberals are one and the same: Their endgame will give them the same results if we let them.

Sorry, forgot about you. Care to explain what qualities socialism possesses, that capitalism does not, that would it to adopt degrowth policies? Why do you believe a socialist society will respond in a different way than a capitalist-dominated one when facing the same, extreme threat?

You're just going to have to accept we are returning to the illiberal mean. This experiment in post-Christian morality and material nihilism will end.

it's not driven by profit that the bourgeoisie demand

Spoken like a true first world middle-class man.

Throughout history the most aggressive narcissists among us never failed to look out for themselves before others. Now that labor demand is dropping with economic growth as the cause the walls of economic inequality are being strengthened. Demoshits wouldn't even raise the minimum wage for a bunch of niggas in Baltimore. The is no opposition. Basically
Want to make a bet on how many DINOs will vote with the fascists to pass le Drumpfkins tax plan?

Redistribution happens after the primary distribution, hence the re. Socialism and communism tackle the fundamental mechanisms of distribution of goods, services, status, and so on in society.
In capitalism, the capitalist owns the MOP, extracts surplus value from the labourers, and then the state can come in and tax some of that surplus value and redistribute it back to the labourer. Under communism, the labourers labour as and for the collective, and the spoils of the labour are similarly enjoyed collectively.

Scarcity is a totally separate issue, but you could argue that once production is communally managed, we can make decisions concerning production that take into account all our common needs, thus taking scarcity into account. Not so under capitalism, where only the private benefits of the capitalists prevail at the expense of all others, or even not even that, and only the reproduction of capital is achieved.

Re the whole world enjoying a "middle class standard of living", it can be done, we have the technology, it's just not in the interest of capital. And it is very easy for you to claim from your throne of first world comfort that sadly, those teeming masses in the third world just can't be allowed to develop, for the planet's sake. They'll just have to continue to live in squalor, or even die, and you to live in semi-bourgeois comfort. How very convenient for you.