Quote from: coins4commies on January 24, 2020, 08:46:06 PM

I don't speak for all communists and there are a bunch of ways to answer that question but personally, I don't believe in seizing assets unless thats how you refer to taxes.

I simply believe there is enough new wealth being created to make sure it gets distributed fairly amongst workers. The economy grows each year but most of that growth is enjoyed by the 1% while wages stay stagnant. If we simply saw that new wealth distributed evenly amongst workers, we wouldn't need to seize anything.

Combine that with the fact that the US government creates new money all the time and most of that money goes to corporations and finds its way into the pockets of the uber rich. I'd simply suggest that wealth goes to everyone. There are a lot of democratic methods for achieving this like Universal basic income, education, healthcare, jobs, or housing. None of those involve seizing assets from anyone.

Quote

Evaluating the impact of QE1, which began in 2008, is nearly impossible. At the time the Fed began rapidly expanding its balance sheet, a number of other events and policy changes were taking place. They included the banking bailout, the auto bailout, advent of zero interest rates, the stimulus package and an accounting change that allowed banks to hold assets on their books to maturity at cost rather than marking them to market. Had all of these taken place in the absence of QE1, how would the economy have performed? Would it have recovered as it did? At the time, it was anybodys guess.

As you see, we print money to help the "economy" all the time. I say we start printing money to help everyday people.

That sounds very cute in theory, but here is the issue: How exactly do you intend for the filthy rich to share? Will you appeal to the goodwill of their heart or...

You do it by force (coercion)?

In the end, this is the very central point about socialism, it is to employ force (State, Workers, Party, whatever). And after you do this, a whole new can of worms unleash. You are still to experience it but i have.

Once the property, capital, assets get "fairly re-distributed" (says who, a new bureaucrat who is suddenly very powerful?) Wealth creation stops, completely. If you make wealth, it will be taken from you, so why bother? However, there is now a bureaucrat who decides who eats twice and who eats thrice... Entrepreneurial mindset gives way to a mindset focused in "somehow" influence those bureaucrats in your favor. (Funny, this sounds a lot like the aristocrats in a Monarchy, hmmm i wonder why the dear leader can't never be peacefully replaced by anyone not chosen by themselves).

Welcome to the "Real Socialism" corruption machine. Incidentally, those factories put in the hands of the workers also don't have much incentive to be efficient or productive (their wealth will be "fairly re-distributed, remember?) or efficient (The State has to be "fair" to the workers) AND the central power usually assigns them a new "boss" anyway, one that you absolutely cannot criticize, or else you become counter-revolutionary. And don't even think about going on strike...

Some anarchist branch proposes a style of communism that seems to be less State centered, especially the ones that doesn't object to capitalism (Anarcho-capitalism). Communism ironically calls for the abolition of the State, but, Socialism wants an almighty State first, AND Marxists say you need socialism before communism, and therefore communism never comes, despite branding everything they do as communist (or socialist, depending).

Now i see two key points:

One, people should do things by their own choice, not coerced or forced in anyway. Else human nature kicks in, regardless of oppression or police state.
Two, the less State the better, preferably none. If you are with the type that call this the "real" communism, i tend to be more in favor.

Whatever communism really is (self governed communities? the French commune?) things can become much worse than you think your current situation is, just by making the wrong choice in the name of an ideal that the stubborn reality never makes possible. (Perhaps the ideal was wrong in the first place).