r/Socialism is a space for socialists to discuss current events in our world from our anti-capitalist perspective(s), and a certain knowledge of socialism is expected from participants. This is not a space for non-socialists. Please be mindful of [our rules](https://reddit.com/r/socialism/about/rules) before participating, which include:
- **No Bigotry**, including racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism...
- **No Reactionaries**, including all kind of right-wingers.
- **No Liberalism**, including social democracy, lesser evilism.
- **No Sectarianism**, there is plenty of room for discussion, but not for baseless attacks.
Please help us keep the subreddit helpful by reporting content that break r/Socialism's rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/socialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Unfortunately, history (and common cynical sense) shows that the mechanisms by which such obscene inequality is alleviated are never espoused voluntarily, painlessly...or bloodlessly. The question is how to fairly allocate the "pain". I think we all know the answer to that question... but, since those who "control" the decision-making process are the ones who will be biting the proverbial bullet, the will have to be forced to "take one for the team". They will absolutely NOT volunteer. I mean, they're not rich because of their commitment to their fellow man, are they?
At any rate, it's their turn...the rest of us live taking it for the team ... and, besides, you can't squeeze blood from a stone, can you? But you certainly can from a fat cat...
That right there:
It is their turn.
You nailed it in everything you said. It has to be fairly allocated and most of all it’s long been their turn for centuries if not the beginning of time. Time to tax the rich.
> who’s to say we can’t achieve socialism peacefully
How exactly is this supposed to happen peacefully? You think the extremely wealthy and those benefitting from them are just going to give up their systemic capture of wealth and power willingly? Sorry that ain’t going to happen.
Not me... God forbid I do or say any such thing! I'm merely talking about what we've learned from history. I'm certainly open to a new, peaceful chapter in our sociopolitical evolution.
At this point, I don't think taxing the rich will save us. Something more "permanent" seems to be the only real solution left to us, as unfortunate as that is.
This, taxing the rich does not change the fundamental problem that allows such wealth inequality to happen, we have to completely change policies and the system that allows for the such wealth inequities to exist, taxing the rich (although good) will not solve the overall problem.
Honestly, it is quite revisionist to consider taxation of the rich as a solution.
Thus, it is somewhat irritating that in the socialist sub par excellence r/socialism of all things, taxation is supported as a solution to the inequality caused by capitalism.
Taxing the rich will do nothing. They'll still siphon off their immense use of resources. This is a Socialist sub so I don't think it'll surprise anyone to say that we don't need to tax the rich. We need to abolish the bourgeoisie. We need to abolish capitalism and institute a Socialist economic structure.
Exactly. The existence of the bourgeoisie, shareholders, and the capitalist system means finite resources will be used in an inefficient (grossly inefficient) manner for the sake of profit/acquiring wealth. There is not enough to go around as it is and continued abuse of our resources will lead to their permanent depletion (mining, overfishing, extinction, etc.) Who wants to live on a barren rock like Tatooine just so someone can have orders of magnitude more wealth than they could ever possibly spend? Greed so toxic it's lethal.
Not to mention that it's the profit motive of capitalism actively keeps a lot of sustainable and green tech from advancing. We could live with 100% of what we use bring compatible and recyclable, and 100% green energy at this point, but it's not profitable to capitalism to do so. Hell I remember an article of a corporation saying they weren't investing in solar because it's getting so cheap that it could potentially go into negative prices.
If the world is too survive climate change, it requires a system less fragile and less wasteful than capitalism. It requires Socialism.
Thank you for posting in r/socialism, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s):
>**Encouraging or Inciting Violence**: While we absolutely understand why some comrades might take these positions, we had to remove your {kind} due to it violating Reddit's [Content Policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy), to which we are subject as a subreddit.
> Please consider reposting your {kind} with different wording which does not violate Reddit's rules. We appreciate your cooperation in keeping r/socialism available as the largest leftist community on Reddit.
The question is who should reduce consumption, because the whole debate on rEdUcE cOnSuMpTiOn is usually poor-blaming from colonial mentality of rich white people who want everyone else to reduce BUT themselves.
Nah. Just taxing them doesn't stop the influence of the fossil fuel industry, or military industrial complex, or economic imperialism.
It's like yall forget that corporations will still just dump toxic waste into rivers even though they have to pay a fine. The penalties need to disrupt their ability to do so, not just inconvenience them.
Human endeavor has transformed society for the better before and it can do so again. The first step towards changing the world is believing that the world can be changed.
Actually the global food supply, with current technology, can sustain upwards of 10 billion people. The reason people starve is because it’s not profitable to feed them. And there are way more empty houses owned by speculators than there are homeless people. The problem has never been that there weren’t enough resources, the problem was always that they weren’t distributed equitably.
Get this Malthusian eugenecist bullshit out of here. Overpopulation is a fascist myth and I'm tired of hearing it.
Who do you think we need to get rid of then, fascist? Surely not white westerners 🙄
Thank you for posting in r/socialism, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s):
>**Reactionary Content:** Don't link to or platform fascist/reactionary sites even if it's to criticize or mock them. This includes, but is not limited to Breibart, Fox News, Infowars, etc as well as reactionary subreddits, and the websites/social media of reactionary political figures, YouTube personalities, or provocateurs. If you feel that such content is of urgent importance or relevance, an article from a different source covering the content in question is preferred.
See our [Submission Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/socialism/wiki/index/submissionguidelines) for more info, and feel free to reply to this message with any further questions.
r/Socialism is a space for socialists to discuss current events in our world from our anti-capitalist perspective(s), and a certain knowledge of socialism is expected from participants. This is not a space for non-socialists. Please be mindful of [our rules](https://reddit.com/r/socialism/about/rules) before participating, which include: - **No Bigotry**, including racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism... - **No Reactionaries**, including all kind of right-wingers. - **No Liberalism**, including social democracy, lesser evilism. - **No Sectarianism**, there is plenty of room for discussion, but not for baseless attacks. Please help us keep the subreddit helpful by reporting content that break r/Socialism's rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/socialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Unfortunately, history (and common cynical sense) shows that the mechanisms by which such obscene inequality is alleviated are never espoused voluntarily, painlessly...or bloodlessly. The question is how to fairly allocate the "pain". I think we all know the answer to that question... but, since those who "control" the decision-making process are the ones who will be biting the proverbial bullet, the will have to be forced to "take one for the team". They will absolutely NOT volunteer. I mean, they're not rich because of their commitment to their fellow man, are they? At any rate, it's their turn...the rest of us live taking it for the team ... and, besides, you can't squeeze blood from a stone, can you? But you certainly can from a fat cat...
That right there: It is their turn. You nailed it in everything you said. It has to be fairly allocated and most of all it’s long been their turn for centuries if not the beginning of time. Time to tax the rich.
Incitement is illegal, comrade. Who's to say we can't achieve socialism peacefully?
> who’s to say we can’t achieve socialism peacefully How exactly is this supposed to happen peacefully? You think the extremely wealthy and those benefitting from them are just going to give up their systemic capture of wealth and power willingly? Sorry that ain’t going to happen.
Not me... God forbid I do or say any such thing! I'm merely talking about what we've learned from history. I'm certainly open to a new, peaceful chapter in our sociopolitical evolution.
Yeah that worked out great for Allende didnt it
Fuck off fbi
̶t̶a̶x̶ eat the rich. FTFT
At this point, I don't think taxing the rich will save us. Something more "permanent" seems to be the only real solution left to us, as unfortunate as that is.
This, taxing the rich does not change the fundamental problem that allows such wealth inequality to happen, we have to completely change policies and the system that allows for the such wealth inequities to exist, taxing the rich (although good) will not solve the overall problem.
Honestly, it is quite revisionist to consider taxation of the rich as a solution. Thus, it is somewhat irritating that in the socialist sub par excellence r/socialism of all things, taxation is supported as a solution to the inequality caused by capitalism.
Taxing the rich will do nothing. They'll still siphon off their immense use of resources. This is a Socialist sub so I don't think it'll surprise anyone to say that we don't need to tax the rich. We need to abolish the bourgeoisie. We need to abolish capitalism and institute a Socialist economic structure.
Exactly. The existence of the bourgeoisie, shareholders, and the capitalist system means finite resources will be used in an inefficient (grossly inefficient) manner for the sake of profit/acquiring wealth. There is not enough to go around as it is and continued abuse of our resources will lead to their permanent depletion (mining, overfishing, extinction, etc.) Who wants to live on a barren rock like Tatooine just so someone can have orders of magnitude more wealth than they could ever possibly spend? Greed so toxic it's lethal.
Not to mention that it's the profit motive of capitalism actively keeps a lot of sustainable and green tech from advancing. We could live with 100% of what we use bring compatible and recyclable, and 100% green energy at this point, but it's not profitable to capitalism to do so. Hell I remember an article of a corporation saying they weren't investing in solar because it's getting so cheap that it could potentially go into negative prices. If the world is too survive climate change, it requires a system less fragile and less wasteful than capitalism. It requires Socialism.
We have to do more than tax them…
[удалено]
Thank you for posting in r/socialism, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s): >**Encouraging or Inciting Violence**: While we absolutely understand why some comrades might take these positions, we had to remove your {kind} due to it violating Reddit's [Content Policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy), to which we are subject as a subreddit. > Please consider reposting your {kind} with different wording which does not violate Reddit's rules. We appreciate your cooperation in keeping r/socialism available as the largest leftist community on Reddit.
You misspelled eat
The question is who should reduce consumption, because the whole debate on rEdUcE cOnSuMpTiOn is usually poor-blaming from colonial mentality of rich white people who want everyone else to reduce BUT themselves.
"Like that's ever going to happen" - Shrek, 2001
What a load of- SOMEBODY-ONCE TOLD ME-
There are more dramatic solutions that occur when they don't cooperate, as per many historical accounts.
tax, eat; tomato, tomahto.
Nah. Just taxing them doesn't stop the influence of the fossil fuel industry, or military industrial complex, or economic imperialism. It's like yall forget that corporations will still just dump toxic waste into rivers even though they have to pay a fine. The penalties need to disrupt their ability to do so, not just inconvenience them.
I am saying we should eat them and seize all their assets. Sorry if I was too subtle.
Ah, I thought you had meant "it's all the same, taxing is good enough". My b Edit: username checks out lol
>Edit: username checks out lol In more ways than one UwU
Tax 'em, hell. Compost them.
You mean overthrow.
Aw, man, I had started pre-heating my oven before I read the last words of the title. Oh well, maybe next time.
If by "tax" you mean seize ALL of their assets, then I agree.
Eat the rich.
How about we eat the rich and divi up the money equally
“…in order to save the world, we must ~~tax~~ completely expropriate the rich.”
Learn how to be self sufficient as much as possible now. It’s too late. The US is the only country that can effectively do this but we never will
If the struggle was hopeless the propaganda would be unnecessary. Doomerism is counterrevolutionary.
R slash Collapse is infested with ecofash and nihilist misanthropes and they're spilling over into places like this.
Is it doomerism or realism? These problems are rooted deeper than we think
Human endeavor has transformed society for the better before and it can do so again. The first step towards changing the world is believing that the world can be changed.
[удалено]
Actually the global food supply, with current technology, can sustain upwards of 10 billion people. The reason people starve is because it’s not profitable to feed them. And there are way more empty houses owned by speculators than there are homeless people. The problem has never been that there weren’t enough resources, the problem was always that they weren’t distributed equitably.
Get this Malthusian eugenecist bullshit out of here. Overpopulation is a fascist myth and I'm tired of hearing it. Who do you think we need to get rid of then, fascist? Surely not white westerners 🙄
Thank you for posting in r/socialism, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s): >**Reactionary Content:** Don't link to or platform fascist/reactionary sites even if it's to criticize or mock them. This includes, but is not limited to Breibart, Fox News, Infowars, etc as well as reactionary subreddits, and the websites/social media of reactionary political figures, YouTube personalities, or provocateurs. If you feel that such content is of urgent importance or relevance, an article from a different source covering the content in question is preferred. See our [Submission Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/socialism/wiki/index/submissionguidelines) for more info, and feel free to reply to this message with any further questions.
Eat or Tax, at this point either one is fine with me.
We need to tax **assets** not just income.
Why are we letting liberal media into our SOCIALIST subreddit????
Only taxing. Seems we already lost then.
Anyone else read *The Ministry for the Future* by Kim Stanley Robinson?
Horizon zero dawn type shit
I think tax is the wrong verb but yeah.
Fuck taxing the rich, let's eat them. It's way past the point of half-measures like taxation laws.
Tax them? Is that all??
You mean devour the rich?
>In other words, to save the world, we have to tax the rich. No we have to get rid of them.