The mentality of socialism versus capitalism

You're the one who said you would have no problem with people trespassing on your land. That's how you get squatters.

 

I have done that kind of thing, regrettably it was charitable work, when I used to do an overnight soup run for the homeless with St Mungo’s.
What I learned was that people are not so much bums and junkies but more like ‘there but for the grace of god’ types.
A huge proportion were ex military.

 

Morals developed out or our survival instincts. Please expand on that.

 

I don’t believe you understand the quote I posted.

 

@ Fatback
Socialism doesn't offer anything for free!
Everyone is expected to contribute according to their ability. Everyone shares the "product".
I submit you do not understand socialism.

 

Morals suited to our survival instincts include teams hunting mammoths and everyone sharing it, which required a coordinator...a leader of the hunt.
Anyone claiming land and keeping others off when a mammoth crossed, and tried to kill it himself, would starve or be trampled to death.
Survival morality depended on everyone doing his part and everyone profiting.

 

Of course I understand it I understand it has a long history of failure.

You see the only problem is this, it works all fine and dandy until your consumers and your takers take more than the givers and the producers can make at that point the Ponzi scheme comes tumbling down.

You can attempt to present yourself as some authority on the subject all you want and say that I don't understand it but I understand it's history of failure.

I also understand it's not a coincidence or an accident that the greatest superpower in the world is a capitalist country

 

In order to house and feed the humans in the collective. So that none need become a burden on the State, not suffer the isolation of the Statist.

 

@ Fatback.
In an ideal and theoretical socialist community, those who do not contribute, do not profit.
If you don't put in, you don't take out.

I am afraid you really do not "get it".

 

But you have invested a lot of effort in criticising tenants for destroying your "community".
Yet you offer them all the opportunities to do so.
You seem a tad conflicted

 

I have a realistic view of human NATURE. When you make things easy, you create soft and lazy humans. We're all subject to that temptation, because we're all human. How we respond to the siren song of the free lunch, determines our worth.

And we most certainly do not all own the land .. any more than the stranger in the street owns the food in your kitchen, or the car in your drive. We have no ****ing right to the products of someone else's labour - that won't wash even in an ordinary collective, much less on a nation scale. That's inequality of the highest order.

 

One of us doesn't get it all right but it isn't me.

 

I have no idea what you're talking about, sorry. There is no 'conflict' in owning private property, and wanting all non-wealthy people to own their own also.

 

Interesting how culture and norms ebb and flow.
Slave owners would not say ‘I have no ****ing right to the products of someone else’s labour’. America was built on slavery which seems to have all the features of capitalism.
Or was the American slave system socialist in some way?

 

Yes, that's exactly how it's done. It's going on all around you, all the time. Only the First World West doesn't get it.

 

OMG ... you overgrown teenagers need to find some actually useful examples to argue, rather than reaching to the bottom of the bucket to find ridiculously outdated or rare 'counterpoints'.

 

First, any decrease in the housing stock means one house fewer that someone could buy. It also reduces supply and puts house prices up.
Second, the benefits in a socialist community are those YOU invested.
The USA charges taxes to, for instance, provide schooling. Some taxpayers don't use that education. Are those who do, profiting from those who don't? YES in your mind.
Taxation is a socialist model. All pay in, some profit more than others. Yet you accept that.

 

Yes .. everyone in THAT tribe.

None of it has ever been universal, and the desire to try to make it universal is an absurdity which comes from a hatred of 'tribalism', coupled with a hatred of the power the tribe gives small men.

 

Thats fine. Except you are happy to profit by their need. If everyone owned their own property, you would lose your income and have to support your property without any income.

 

It was you who expressed a desire to protect "the community"...family unit...tribe.
In the real world we live in a universal community.
Not the 19th century.
Within that, there is no reason why your small communities can't happen.
In fact they almost always do. Even if some rent property.

 

What don't you understand about lots of people sharing a few properties? How many people live at your house? And how many others have you housed by securing property on their behalf?

 

I have no clue what this means, sorry. No member of the collective pays rent. The point of the exercise is to dramatically cut the cost of living for all concerned.

 

You are reduced to personal attack because you are unable to sustain a reasonable argument.

 

No we freaking don't live in universal communities. The Welfare State WANTS us as a permanent dependent underclass (what you call a 'universal community') but only because it strips us of our power and transfers our wealth to the pockets of the elites.

PS: a friendly reminder that a community is a function of RELATIONSHIPS, not accident of place or state They can only happen within a group of people known to each other over a long period of time, and wherein all meet their social obligations. Anything less is NOT a community .. it is merely a 'region' of strangers - mostly looking out for themselves.

 

This is irrelevant to the fact that your owning property is a CAPITALIST stance, and particularly targeted by Marx as an example of the property owning class exploits those who don't own property.
Let's not conflate time. Back then there were the aristocracy, the bourgeois property owners and the peasantry.
Of course today anyone can own property. Marx would have approved.
But let's also realise that your property ownership PLUS accusing tenants YOU attract are destroying your community. It is YOU who offer them the chance to do so AND make money in the process. You cannot have it both ways and not be a hypocrite.