You must log in or register to comment.

emma wrote

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

14

n_n wrote (edited )

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

2

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

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

6c_6f_76_65 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

[deleted] wrote

4

TOPE OP wrote

What about anarcho capitalists?

−3

[deleted] wrote

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

qimerra wrote

I became an anarchist after I started making decent money. More time to think and read.

1

abbycadabra wrote

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

−2