Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

emma wrote

what kind of non-real money do you imply we're making? monopoly money?

13

n_n wrote (edited )

Monopoly money has more value that the currency of my country at the moment. XD

2

Splinglebot wrote

if I ever make 'real money' I'd take it as a sign I'm too compliant and I'd have to eat myself

10

amongstclouds wrote

If I started making 'real money' I'd probably just buy a shit ton of guns and hand them out to any marginalized person who wanted one. I'll include copies of The Coming Insurrection too.

7

ziq wrote

Honestly honestly I wouldn't be a socialist if I had money, I'd be a capitalist. Because when you have a lot of money that's what you are. An exploiter of others.

It's incredibly rare for someone with power to go against their own interests and give up any of their power.

I'd build up a bunch of bullshit reasoning in my mind to justify me exploiting those under me to benefit myself. I might even continue to call myself a socialist the way ancaps call themselves anarchists or state capitalists call themselves communists. All power corrupts and anyone pretending they'd be above it somehow doesn't understand power hierarchies.

9

transtifa wrote

I'd share all the money I could...

6

amongstclouds wrote (edited )

I'm not a socialist.

5

Uwusketamine445 wrote

Idk, I’ve had money in my life, he’ll I’ve been a fucking trust fund kid. But being a socialist involves putting that aside and not using the wealth generated by exploiting people. Also my parents stopped paying me because i spent a lot of money on meth. But idk if by some way of luck I managed to make a lot of money but simultaneously not exploit people, I’d find a way to share it with my comrades and those less fortunate. Like I’ve always done when I have money, but there’s no way in hell im climbing up that bullshit capitalist ladder to get rich off of other people’s hard work.

5

10011001001 wrote

Not sure I would identify myself as a socialist.

If I lucked into a lot of money I would take a year off and become a field hand in permaculture farms around the world. After that year I would start visiting areas that need food and build food forests everywhere. After a few years I should know enough that I would freely teach anyone who wanted to learn. Even if only one person signed up.

5

Factualist wrote

I think by definition yes, since the only way to make "real" money is by holding capital which kind of puts you out of the running as far as being a socialist, a communist, or an anarchist is concerned.

5

TOPE OP wrote

What about anarcho capitalists?

−4

Factualist wrote

They aren't anarchists. Anarchism is a very specific thing, not just something you can append to any view. Anarchists seek to abolish unjust hierarchy and capitalism is inherently hierarchical and inherently unjust. When a minuscule fraction of people own almost the entirety of the means of production in a society and they control who works and how much they get paid, they essentially decide if people live or die. The people on the receiving end of this deal (the workers) are automatically at a disadvantage in bargaining because they need money to live, thus the exchange is coerced and unjust. The is no such thing as a "voluntary exchange" under capitalism

4
−3

Factualist wrote

In both its collectivist and individualist forms, anarchism is usually considered a radical left-wing and anti-capitalist ideology that promotes socialist economic theories such as communism, syndicalism and mutualism.[64][65] These anarchists believe capitalism is incompatible with social and economic equality and therefore do not recognize anarcho-capitalism as an anarchist school of thought.[66][67][68][69] In particular, they argue that capitalist transactions are not voluntary and that maintaining the class structure of a capitalist society requires coercion, which is incompatible with an anarchist society

We are these people here.

4

TOPE OP wrote

Speak for yourself.

−3

Factualist wrote

This is objectively an anti-capitalist website, you (probably) won't be banned for being a chud but you can clearly see you're not in good company.

3

tpedes wrote

You mean real money as opposed to Monopoly money? Oh, wait, it's all Monopoly money....

I've earned real money all my life, although not always enough to live on very well. Right now, I "own" a house and a car, have a small amount of retirement savings, and am making a student loan lender and several banks happy. I also know that this makes me better off than 85% or more of the people in this world.

Related to this, I heard yesterday that, as of 2016, around 70%of indigenous children in Guatemala are malnourished while bananas, coffee, and other products are produced by a few wealthy families to ship north to the U.S. Why the fuck wouldn't I be a socialist knowing that?

4

TOPE OP wrote

Socialism will give the bananas and coffee to the children?

1

Majrelende wrote

Assuming this type of socialism is communism, socialism is giving the bananas and coffee to the children. This is because the banana and coffee trees no longer technically belong to anyone. One may take what they need and leave the rest for others— there is no reason to take more than one needs, as those who do may quickly realise that they are full.

There are other varieties of socialism, though, and generally, the only thing they can agree on is that workers should own the means of production, which leaves quite a bit of room for other outcomes. However, even in market socialism, it would be somewhat better, as wealthier countries would not be overtly stealing labour-power from poorer ones, though this does not necessarily mean that they will be fed.

3

Majrelende wrote

Why? Because I will have anecdotally proven that social mobility is widespread? I care nothing about social mobility. What I do care about is that society cares about the needs of individuals rather than the twisted desires and profits of the powerful.

As ziq was saying, though, it would be difficult to make such large amounts of money without exploitation, and I have no plans to exploit anyone, so it would be unlikely.

3

rot wrote (edited )

no. I come from a middle class family, I'm not poor and if I had more money I'd put it into anarchist efforts.

2

xowx wrote

no see

what you do is

you give the money to people who need it

1

abbycadabra wrote

Chicken/egg. You only make "real money" after you accept capitalism.

0