• Aux@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    51
    ·
    1 year ago

    Then everyone will be poor and the civilization will collapse.

    • Tavarin@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      34
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Oh yeah, cause society totally collapsed in the 1960s when wealth distribution was far more fair than today.

      • Marxism-Fennekinism@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Also, the Indigenous peoples in North America did really well with no concept of money until the Europeans came. Some Indigenous communities have lower life expectancy today than was estimated to be before colonization.

    • BigNote@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Great concentration of wealth is also highly destabilizing. We are seeing this play out before our eyes in real time right now.

    • Gyoza Power@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      If it hasn’t collapsed with a few hundred people having more money than the rest of the entire world while also using it for selfish motives, I doubt it would collapse with a fairer distribution. But capitalism shills gotta shill

      • Aux@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        You know which countries are most “equal”? Poor African countries where people can’t even afford fresh water.

        • Orphie Baby@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          There are many problems with this argument; but it’s 11pm and I’m sleepy, so have the first one that came to mind.

          Those countries don’t have a lot of wealth per capita to begin with, so it’s not a goddamned equal comparison.

        • Gyoza Power@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Do you know which one was more equal? USA in the 50s and 60s, when the tax rate for rich people ranged from 70% up to 92%. A time period where regular people could also afford to live comfortably (family and house included) with a regular job.

          Sorry, your arguments are just bad and only show your ignorance.

    • paholg@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      There’s a large range between being a billionaire and being poor, silly billy.

      • Aux@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        And there’s a big difference between a society which allows everyone to become a billionaire and a society which forces everyone to be poor.

    • Warfarin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      These communists will always think “it’s just never been done properly” trying to reason with them is futile

      • hellishharlot@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Healthcare and homelessness were both better than the US up until the last decade of the Soviet Union. If capitalism needs it’s boom and bust cycles and we think that 40k+ people dying from joblessness every recession is acceptable surely we can afford the same level of devastation when discussing socialism right?

        • Aux@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          US is a craphole. Capitalism provides great healthcare literally everywhere else.