You're actually critiquing the existence of inequality, and claiming it wouldn't exist in a socialist system. This is deeply dishonest.
Inequality is often far more grave in centralized systems. Moreover, the religious (protestant?) fervor that communist/socialist regimes come with merely serves to create a neo-feudalism with the politburo at the top.
I'm from India, which remains today, essentially a communist state, which is simultaneously a colonial and also an apartheid state. People are kept poor, and uneducated in order for a large set of English-educated people to be on the top. For this loads of instruments of cultural-marxism are brought to bear, keeping the sheep divides, using funding from USAID and assorted daughter NGOs. Linguistic apartheid rules the day in India, where getting higher education -much like Africa- is now nay impossible without knowing the God's language, English. India will soon be the world's largest prostitute, selling itself to the highest bidder.
In a communist system, it'd be the politburo that would be deeply involved in the trade children, by the mere fact that this is the community that'd have political capital. Not much different from the current situation to be honest.
Inequality is built into crapitalism, without homeless people serving as an example for the sleeple they stop wage slaving in the mines and factories.
Just because you can go to the store and get what you need for free will not make us equal, some of us will excel, and some of us will be bums, it's just how life is.
The question is if you like the status quo.
Do you want to continue to be repressed by the thugs hired by the rich, or do you want to be free from coercion?
Do you know who Bhagat Singh is?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I don't believe a centralized bureaucracy with an economic stranglehold is good.
Are you therefore claiming that making the state judge what one is "good" at is the answer. China had something similar in place; not sure if the Soviets did.
What exactly are you asking for, economically ?
I don't fall for that family of dialetics anymore.
Indeed - he was apparently driven by Socialism; much as were S C Bose, and the Fabian politburo that has run India since.
Ironic considering that Marx himself was a racist asshat who thought British brought civilization to India's "primitive socialist" society run according to him by "superstition" and "feudalism". Not at all surprising considering his Rothschild association.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I am advocating the end of the 'state'.
I think you missed the end of rule by force aspect of the proposal.
Nobody will be forced to do things they don't want to do, even if they decide to be bums.
http://freeindia.org/biographies/freedomfighters/bhagathsingh/
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I don't think that's the general understanding of communism (though, I guess that's what it means etymologically).
Calling India "free" is a joke. If you're interested in India (as opposed to the continuing colonial propaganda), you should read Dharampal.
https://archive.org/details/DharampalCollectedWritingsIn5Volumes
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I got that on the reading list.
Few places in the world are not ruled by force, and therefore, are not free.
The 'communist' bolshevicks used the rhetoric of communists, but were in fact no different than any other crapitalusts and ruled by force to benefit themselves.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit