Both egoism and altruism are human nature. We are capable of both (for the most part). Currently, we have a socioeconomic system that rewards and encourages primarily the former. Why not try it the other way and see where that brings us?
I kind of fail to see how a life in which all my basic needs are secured as long as I agree for them to be secured for everyone else, thus freeing me from anxiously giving my life to the futile attempt to crawl above others, is “altruistic”. Working your ass off for nothing but your crude survival and the benefit of a handful of others doesn’t seem very selfish if you put it in this perspective.
In any case, whatever is going on right now - it’s… not good, to say the least. Wanting to fix the problem with the problem is horribly naive.
Anyway, nice meme.
My response is always is it not human nature for many to be violent towards others and yet few would say that’s ok. The answer is simple, humans are fundementally more then their base instincts and desires. If humanity were nothing more then animals then society as we know it would have never formed.
Based response, even though I wouldn’t say I’m a communist, more social democratic
Removed by mod
There are two arguments being combined here. The first half is regarding the free rider problem within a theoretical communist society. The second is regarding care of the less fortunate within a voluntaryist society. They are both valid arguments without proven answers outside of theory.
They’re both invalid arguments with proven answers throughout history. The free rider problem hasn’t existed in Communists states any more than in capitalist ones, meanwhile we know for a fact that trickle down economics does not work.
They’re both invalid arguments with proven answers throughout history. The free rider problem hasn’t existed in Communists states any more than in capitalist ones, meanwhile we know for a fact that trickle down economics does not work.
Your post isn’t an answer to either argument nor has anything been “proven”. Communism is a stateless society, and I can’t think of a time that has existed before the birth of nations. The free rider problem is what happens in a communist society when those who decide not to contribute become a burden upon those who do. Trickle down economics has nothing to do with charitable giving within a voluntary market-driven society, but is a term used to describe stronger economic growth based on reduced tax burdens for the upper economic class.
Free rider problem is made up. Stateless classless societies have obviously existed throughout history. Every small tribal society is basically that. Meanwhile, the “voluntary” market-driven society is what liberal capitalism is. It doesn’t work.
The free rider problem is most definitely not made up.
Stateless classless societies have obviously existed throughout history. Every small tribal society is basically that.
Every tribal society on earth exists within a State. As I wrote before, there have always been States after the birth of nations.
Meanwhile, the “voluntary” market-driven society is what liberal capitalism is. It doesn’t work.
There isn’t currently a voluntary market society, since all societies also exist within States, States that are run by governments.
The two original arguments exist within a theoretical vacuum which is my point. Unless you have some kind of a priori argument that solves either one, you haven’t provided actual “proof” of anything.
The free rider problem is most definitely not made up.
It is because real world societies have simple and well known mechanisms to deal with it.
Every tribal society on earth exists within a State. As I wrote before, there have always been States after the birth of nations.
It very much does not.
There isn’t currently a voluntary market society, since all societies also exist within States, States that are run by governments.
Wait till you find out how and why states form.
The two original arguments exist within a theoretical vacuum which is my point. Unless you have some kind of a priori argument that solves either one, you haven’t provided actual “proof” of anything.
Actually, it’s your arguments that exist in a theoretical vacuum utterly divorced from the real world.
deleted by creator
What is that first sentence trying to communicate?
smh read some theory
“Communism is when we do bartering, the more you barter the more communister it gets”
(Carl Marks, inventor of the Fallout bartering system)
Removed by mod
If the state can incentivize charity to negate the effects of capitalist naked self interest, why can’t the state just… help directly?
Removed by mod
Good
Removed by mod
Almost like decades of terrible policies moved the tax burden from the extremely wealthy to the middle lower class.
If you trust trump to improve things for anyone other than himself I got a bridge to sell you.
Removed by mod
I personally believe currency hurts the poor. I think we should be working to abolish it.
Removed by mod
You simply get a vehicle. Why is this hard?
There’s no bartering; that’s stupid. We simply take care of one another. This seems like the obvious way to run a society. But instead we have people that can’t imagine it this way thanks to the brain rot capitalism provides.
Removed by mod
Oh no, taxes! What else scares you, women of the age of the majority?
Removed by mod
If someone mugs me and then hands me a dollar, that is charity.
😆
Removed by mod
Philanthropy doesn’t actually do anything to address the issues in tangible terms. Not only that, but the problems that it’s meant to address are actually caused by the very people using philanthropy as PR for themselves. https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2018/12/the-problems-with-philanthropy
Removed by mod
So you’re saying philanthropists cause cancer in children?
That’s quite possible, rich businesses have a quite extensive history of poisoning environment.
Your meme specifies: In a truly free market, voluntary charity would help the poor - indeed that’s a fact.
The poor are the product of the free market operating. The free market is what’s creating the problem in the first place.
So you’re saying philanthropists cause cancer in children? And that’s why they donate to children’s cancer hospitals…?
Now that’s just a straw man you’re using to derail the argument.
His arguments countered.
🤣
A strawman that may actually be true, given how much poison the rich have dumped into our environment.
Indeed, all the externalities of businesses operating is how we find ourselves in a climate and ecological disaster.
They donate not because of the goodness in their heart, but because they get tax cuts from it.
Furthermore, what does donation really accomplish when:
-
People are still suffering, regardless of how many charities there are and how much money they get;
-
Those wealthy donors are the reason people continue poor since they are only wealthy by exploiting other people’s work.
Charities shouldn’t need to exist in the first place.
Removed by mod
People will always suffer. There’s a multitude of variables as to why people around the world suffer.
Let’s take a step back. Why does the majority of people suffer under capitalism? Because they have to live in a world where they don’t get good, free healthcare, don’t have a right to a house, don’t earn nearly enough to live comfortably, don’t have enough vacation, can’t afford to take a trip, don’t have time to enjoy their lives, are alienated from their work, have shitty jobs, work too much, etc, etc, etc.
That creates a necessity for charities for all the basic stuff everyone should have, but doesn’t currently have. If we give free good healthcare for everyone, the need for charities to threat people disappears. If we give everyone a home, the need for charities for homeless people, disappear.
Okay, so how about they don’t donate to charities… no more technical advancement in medicine, so people can be poor and die from disease.
What??? You do know that most breakthrough advancements doesn’t come from the private initiative right? It comes mainly from public, government expending, into research. This idea that private entities advance society is just a liberal propaganda lie that is peddled to us all the time since birth.
Charities isn’t something you enforce or eliminate. It is a free choice to give. Mandate it and you’re just legalizing theft by the authority.
I’m not talking about making charities illegal, I, like every other communist in the world, am talking about solving the issue at it’s roots, eliminating capitalism, and that requires eliminating exploitation through labor and eliminating the rich and insanely wealthy as a class.
-
So… wtf is the problem? They’re donating. Why aren’t you happy?
It’s another way billionaires are taking away power from the common people. They are donating money and reducing their taxes by doing so. What it effectively means is that instead of the democratically elected government deciding on what causes that money is spent on, the billionaires get to decide instead.
Removed by mod
More like billionaires donating ‘charities’ that push a certain agenda, e.g. the NRA, instead paying taxes that can be spent on things likje public schools or libraries.
Or they just create their own ‘charity’ that supports whatever political goals they have.
Removed by mod
The problem is that the billionaires get to decide how the money is spent, instead of ‘we the people’. You are basically giving them control over how that tax money is used.
Don’t you see the contradiction in your own meme? The clown says “we are born selfish” and then goes on to say “people are generous”. This in itself is a massive contradiction.
imagine lacking the brainpower to understand a 4 panel meme
Do you think that might have something to do with why he’s portrayed as a clown?
Communism is against human nature.
Along with every social construct that we make including laws and traditions. We make these rules precisely to counter the human nature in an attempt to create a better society, though not all are by intentional design. What is good for an isolated sole single individual is very different for a whole society and a prosperous society benefits individuals to have different opportunities than a lone actor. For example, a society where you aren’t constantly worried about theft allows you to engage in trade more freely and thus able to trade more. The act of limiting personal freedom (nature) to steal, in turn, allowed society to have an increase in ability to trade.
What is closer to human nature is going to be more easily accepted by humans. And free market is closer to nature than communism. That is why it was invented first and what has set place first. If communism is indeed what society as a whole feels is better for society, they will constantly shift towards it. Some may argue similar to Canada or Scandinavian countries. Though I wouldn’t define what they’re shifting to as communism because countries like Sweden, Denmark, etc. score higher than USA in economic freedom index (free market). But, that discussion would go off course from topic of what is true communism which has no end.
Last 2 panels of the OP’s memes refer more greatly to individual actions rather than societal actions. I’m sure certain individuals will help and be charitable. Though as a whole would be obviously less than communism since certain definitions of communism would be a mathematical maximum of reduction of poor due to equalization.
The last two panels refer to structuring society based on the expectation that wealthy people will share, which is basically the trickle down argument.
Bro why is it always you when I go on lemmy arguing on a fucking meme page in favor of communism. Get a life man!
this vapid comment was written without any hint of irony 😂
That interpretation seems more like your own opinion rather than the opinion of those who actually say that. I see little causal relevance between charity and trickle down economics.
You have to think more impartially to understand why these two train of thoughts have little to no intersection. Do you know why these people you’re characterizing are saying “people are generous”? Because like you said, greed is simultaneously said. If you get it, you’ll see it’s not about trickle down.
Additionally the general right wing argument for the structuring society around volunteer charity over forced social care is that volunteer format is enough from the view of the giver, not that they will get enough from the view of the receiver. If that happens to be nothing, they’re saying so be it. If that happens to be a lot, that’s great. The argument is also about having the option to choose where they help rather than a government body choosing it… Though I don’t think individuals could possibly know though to choose well.
I am not making an argument for the right or left. I’m just fixing the polarized viewpoint of the other party.
What I’m saying is that regardless how you frame this, what it comes down in tangible terms is trickle down. The argument is that it’s fine for the wealth to become concentrated with a small minority of the population because they will share it voluntarily. This is demonstrably not the case in practice.
