But see, it’s not fair if people just get what they need! You need to make sure people are paying for it!
We can make it part of the system that each person gets help according to their needs, but each person also gives help according to their abilities. Yes yes. This is now definitely capitalism because it’s transactions.
This is now definitely capitalism because it’s transactions.
Capitalism has nothing to do with transactions. Capitalism would be if the truck was owed by Benny, who would not show up, not fill it up with gas, not repair it, but would still receive half of pizza and 2/3 of beer.
You are correct that I was not describing capitalism.
I was participating in the silly by creeping closer to full communism and still saying it’s something else.
And I’m not sure why Benny would only get half and 2/3s respectively. They owned the truck, so they’re the one that did the moving. The others are just employees.
It’s not really capitalism without the involvement of capital, is it? It’s more akin to a trade-and-barter-economy/society, where everyone involved should have a high level of faith in others
Sorry if it wasn’t clear, but money != Capital, not necessarily. You can have money to exchange for goods, but as long as your money doesn’t auto-accumulate via interest, dividends etc, you don’t necessarily have capital. Of course this is mainly a discussion on definitions then
A.k.a. community
"What if we had a system where people could get the assistance they need. We could call it… Communityism.
But see, it’s not fair if people just get what they need! You need to make sure people are paying for it!
We can make it part of the system that each person gets help according to their needs, but each person also gives help according to their abilities. Yes yes. This is now definitely capitalism because it’s transactions.
Capitalism has nothing to do with transactions. Capitalism would be if the truck was owed by Benny, who would not show up, not fill it up with gas, not repair it, but would still receive half of pizza and 2/3 of beer.
You are correct that I was not describing capitalism.
I was participating in the silly by creeping closer to full communism and still saying it’s something else.
And I’m not sure why Benny would only get half and 2/3s respectively. They owned the truck, so they’re the one that did the moving. The others are just employees.
I’m pretty sure they were referring to From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs which most definitely is not capitalism lol, it’s a joke
I get the rest of the comment dude, its the last sentence that is problematic.
the last sentence is a joke… because what is being described is socialism. How is that problematic? lol wat?
It’s not really capitalism without the involvement of capital, is it? It’s more akin to a trade-and-barter-economy/society, where everyone involved should have a high level of faith in others
How do you think Kevin paid for the truck? With pizzas?
Sorry if it wasn’t clear, but money != Capital, not necessarily. You can have money to exchange for goods, but as long as your money doesn’t auto-accumulate via interest, dividends etc, you don’t necessarily have capital. Of course this is mainly a discussion on definitions then
I’m pretty sure they were referring to From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs which most definitely is not capitalism lol, it’s a joke
TIL, thx