People should not be allowed to be billionaires.
https://youtu.be/1BSFyrxzZ4s
Without watching the video, I say no. However, I believe it is morally repugnant to remain a billionaire.
In and of itself, one's net worth would not make one "evil"
(by the way.....DUH...)
Without having seen the clip i will say that i've always been fond of the saying: The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do Nothing.
And i would say that inaction when you have the opportunity for action is a choice in and by itseld. And if said choice allows 'evil', to continue then that is where your allignment falls.
Which is all without touching on the cost and suffering we know is inflicted on the world and its peoples, that gathering such wealth entails.
But i'll go one further. By said logic, i define myself as evil. I am no billionaire. But the iphone and ipad i bought for the gf are not free of blood. Every airplane flight to a holiday destination i have taken has been a willing forestfire that I deemed less worthy than my own fun. I prefer to go out to dinner from time to time rather than donate the excess cash to a good cause. I spend my lazy sunday afternoons playing games rather than helping out in a soup kitchen.
I think it is human nature. Were someone less fortunate have been in my place, they would probably act and live in a similar way to how i do now.
But yes, i concider myself evil, because my lifestyle and my choices cause for a nett loss in the world.
Quote from: GodFree on November 21, 2021, 12:50:00 AM
In and of itself, one's net worth would not make one "evil"
(by the way.....DUH...)
I would suggest “net worth†is a subjective value. Is monetary wealth less important than say….personal property? If I have the only fire extinguisher and as it is mine I am free to use it as I wish. So if I walk past your unconscious body in your burning car without using my personal wealth to help you am I evil? Of course not….
It is ethically wrong to use your money to influence elected politicians and to evade taxes. We can vote in people who will stop all this political donation bullshit and raise the marginal rates on the super wealthy. It's wasn't rocket science to earlier generations but for now the US voting block is a headless chicken.
For comparison, a million seconds is about a week and a half. A billion seconds is about 32 years. HUGE difference.
And something else to keep in mind: a person wealthy enough to buy anything is a person wealthy enough to buy our democracy.
Don't have to be wealthy enough to buy anything, to buy a politician, sad to say. Some of those people will vote how you want based on a fractured ideology.
Could Elon Musk end world hunger with $6 billion? 5 questions, answered (https://inkl.com/a/NJvXVvfdpqx)
This is an interesting article on how solving world hunger is more complicated than putting people into space. Elon Musk tweeted that he might be willing to donate $6 billion to hunger relief if the United Nations can prove it can solve world hunger “right now.†Musk's safe bet means he clearly understands the obstacles involved in world hunger.
There is enough food on Earth to feed everyone. Millions are going hungry not because of a global inability to grow enough food, although this could change as climate-related disasters, such as extreme heat, droughts, floods, and storms, diminish agricultural productivity. These climate change impacts will increase if society does not act quickly enough.
Today, hunger is a result of conflict, poor infrastructure, inequality, and poverty. For instance, after years of conflict in Yemen, over 5 million people are on the brink of famine. And as the Syrian conflict reaches its 10-year mark, 12.4 million people â€" over 60 percent of the population there â€" are struggling to get enough to eat. ...
The WFP says it needs an additional $6.6 billion beyond its annual budget to alleviate world hunger today. At least, in theory, the richest people on Earth could easily afford to accomplish this feat year after year. The wealthiest one percent of Americans alone held a combined net worth of $34.2 trillion in 2020.
Even if the rich were to pony up, it takes more than money to solve hunger. Infrastructure is organized by governments, increasing equality often requires mass civil movements, and policy change and reducing conflict require intergovernmental diplomacy. ...
Quote from: GSOgymrat on November 23, 2021, 08:53:58 AMThis is an interesting article on how solving world hunger is more complicated than putting people into space. Elon Musk tweeted that he might be willing to donate $6 billion to hunger relief if the United Nations can prove it can solve world hunger “right now.†Musk's safe bet means he clearly understands the obstacles involved in world hunger.
Or he's lying and is just shitposting (literally, as he admitted pretty recently) on Twitter for attention.
Quote from: Hydra009 on November 23, 2021, 07:30:22 PM
Or he's lying and is just shitposting (literally, as he admitted pretty recently) on Twitter for attention.
He's salty because of the billionaires tax.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on November 23, 2021, 08:25:58 PMHe's salty because of the billionaires tax.
Pretty much. You don't get that rich by being generous. And you certainly don't give it away on a whim to win an argument on the internet.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on November 20, 2021, 12:08:10 AM
People should not be allowed to be billionaires.
https://youtu.be/1BSFyrxzZ4s
Didn't watch the video since it's obviously comical. The assertion that "people shouldn't be allowed to be billionaires" has no practical application whatsoever. (The US GDP is over 20 Trillion dollars - what does that make it?)
Not to mention that billionaires can do a lot more good than people of comparatively fewer assets. People with little money wouldn't be able to fund things like sciences, arts, philanthropic causes, and so on.
Not to mention that billionaires can do a lot more good than people of comparatively fewer assets. People with little money wouldn't be able to fund things like sciences, arts, philanthropic causes, and so on.
Wins the most misguided Russian bot style statement of the day. Billionaires shut down the US factories that paid good wages (thanks Jack Welch) and now the biggest companies are conduits for funneling Chinese communist party goods into Walmart and Amazon warehouses (thanks Bezos). In the meantime, they are busy manipulating food, removing every bit of fiber and nutrition from sugar laden supermarket shelves (thanks big sugar) resulting in an obese population that is disproportionately devasted by the pandemic and a host of other health issues (and of course we have no universal healthcare). As they fight any attempts at curtailing climate change, they live off of rotating loans so to avoid paying taxes, yet they have government officials at their fingertips since they funded all of their campaigns. And since schools get hardly any funding we can raise an under educated public who are clueless on science and love jesus. Perfect. Thank you, billionaires for taking 90% of the wealth off the table so that you can ride in a penis shaped idiotic "spaceship" to nowhere and decide how and when this shitshow will end badly.
Quote from: Cassia on December 19, 2021, 09:30:57 AM
Billionaires shut down the US factories that paid good wages (thanks Jack Welch) and now the biggest companies are conduits for funneling Chinese communist party goods into Walmart and Amazon warehouses (thanks Bezos).
Oh Lord, that's a big correlation causation fallacy. The fact that they're "billionaires" is irrelevant to those assertions - even if we take those assertions for granted to begin with. Obviously Jeff Bezos and Amazon have created new jobs which wouldn't have previously existed.
Quote
In the meantime, they are busy manipulating food, removing every bit of fiber and nutrition from sugar laden supermarket shelves (thanks big sugar) resulting in an obese population that is disproportionately devasted by the pandemic and a host of other health issues (and of course we have no universal healthcare).
Right, the onus is on people to follow their doctor's advice and not eat that kind of food in excess or become obese. That's better than filing frivolous lawsuits and claim someone held a gun to you're head and forced you to gorge on that kind of food on a daily basis. Plus I'm sure there are billionaires who have funded plenty of "healthy foods".
Quote
As they fight any attempts at curtailing climate change, they live off of rotating loans so to avoid paying taxes, yet they have government officials at their fingertips since they funded all of their campaigns.
Some of the biggest funders of climate alarmism are billionaires. The myth that "no billionaires pay taxes", or that "only billionaires" could find legal tax loopholes is absurd.
Quote
And since schools get hardly any funding we can raise an under educated public who are clueless on science and love jesus.
Oh my God, this can't be serious. First of all, teaching a little bit of outdated scientism by rote indoctrination is a very small and insignificant element of learning or "education".
Second of all, what passes for "education' at the bare minimum of what's legally required, or necessary to graduate K-12 or complete an SAT is barely just 1 step above the law of the jungle, which is why the average person never learns to read above and beyond the 6th grade level.
"Billionaires" have little to do with this - they're not wizards who could just waive a magic wand and somehow instantly transform a person who never learned how to read past the 6th grade into an Einstein (especially when what you're conflating with "education" isn't even designed to do that to begin with). And anything above that would require a significant investment on the part of the person attempting to learn things.
Quote
Perfect. Thank you, billionaires for taking 90% of the wealth off the table
Poor understanding of how "wealth" works, or what it even is in practice. All financial transitions are just negotiations, and ultimately "wealth" doesn't exist outside of pure abstraction, beyond what someone is electively willing to pay for something. If a person wanted to, they could sell a rocket ship for $1, or sell a Pokemon card for $1,000,000 - no body's stopping them from doing it, and "wealth" isn't some kind of magical trinket that "makes" a person exchange their goods and services if they don't want to for any number of reasons.
[quote[
so that you can ride in a penis shaped idiotic "spaceship" to nowhere and decide how and when this shitshow will end badly.[/color]
[/quote]
Okay so you're against funding of space travel? Maybe someone could make a case against that, but it's rather unusual.
Being a billionaire is in itself neither evil nor good. The critical factor is how one acquired those billions.
In other news, at the rate our government keeps printing money we will soon all be billionaires.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on November 20, 2021, 12:08:10 AM
People should not be allowed to be billionaires.
https://youtu.be/1BSFyrxzZ4s
Indeed it is evil to be a billionaire, their wealth is gained through the exploitation of the working class, the exploitation of working people. They have not earned it and it is excessive, soon they will be trillionaires, yet the workers are not entitled to the fruits of their own labour, and thus cannot reap what they sow because some rich Capitalist bourgeois extracts the surplus value of their labour and takes it as a capital gain, they should not exist.
The secret to becoming wealthy is to hire someone then underpay them. You don't have to hire them to do anything in particular, just hire them. You can even hire them to do nothing. All you have to do is, once you've hired them, you underpay them. The more people you hire and underpay, the richer you become. You don't need to actually produce anything to sell to the public. All you need to do is underpay your employees.
Quote from: Jason Harvestdancer on January 06, 2022, 07:22:44 AM
The secret to becoming wealthy is to hire someone then underpay them. You don't have to hire them to do anything in particular, just hire them. You can even hire them to do nothing. All you have to do is, once you've hired them, you underpay them. The more people you hire and underpay, the richer you become. You don't need to actually produce anything to sell to the public. All you need to do is underpay your employees.
In order for this to work you have to convince someone else to pay you more than you pay your employees. A lot of employees. It is difficult to convince someone to pay you if you aren't offering them some type of goods or services.
Quote from: ProletarianBanner on January 06, 2022, 12:57:18 AM
Indeed it is evil to be a billionaire, their wealth is gained through the exploitation of the working class, the exploitation of working people. They have not earned it and it is excessive, soon they will be trillionaires, yet the workers are not entitled to the fruits of their own labour, and thus cannot reap what they sow because some rich Capitalist bourgeois extracts the surplus value of their labour and takes it as a capital gain, they should not exist.
Don't you worry about it. Once the inflation kicks in we'll all be billionaires. Of course a loaf of bread will cost a hundred million, but let's ignore that for now.
Quote from: Jason Harvestdancer on January 06, 2022, 09:02:22 PM
Don't you worry about it. Once the inflation kicks in we'll all be billionaires. Of course a loaf of bread will cost a hundred million, but let's ignore that for now.
Go harvest yourself!
Quote from: Jason Harvestdancer on January 06, 2022, 09:02:22 PM
Don't you worry about it. Once the inflation kicks in we'll all be billionaires. Of course a loaf of bread will cost a hundred million, but let's ignore that for now.
If you're making a Venezuela joke, Venezuela is Capitalist, most of their industry is in PRIVATE hands.
Communism in your idea, will never work to begin with. You leave out the entirety of why “capitalism†in all its warts is still preferred. Because the schumk on his ass next to me while I’m shoveling shit gets exactly what I get? Fuck you. People be lazy, people be hard working…one week of sharing the cookies and your beautiful idea starts to shrivel. If it worked that well, it would have been already well established as a the perfect economy a thousand years ago. You can’t control human emotion or ego…thus communism as you see it…will never…ever…work.
It is no evil to be a billionaire, if it serves for a greater good, like helping the homeless.
I m sitting with god on the negotiation table, if he grants me a billion, I will spend it on goodwill.
I remember a friend who wants to be appointed for a government job, it was a lowest rank position. He gave the promise that if he had been appointed, would donate his first monthly salary to a charity helping the childeren who have cancer.
Kinda negotiation, ha?
Quote from: ProletarianBanner on January 07, 2022, 11:49:22 AM
If you're making a Venezuela joke, Venezuela is Capitalist, most of their industry is in PRIVATE hands.
1. I'm talking about US Federal Reserve policy of money printing, which means I am discussing economic policy. I understand if that confuses you.
2. There is no sense of the word "capitalist" that describes Venezuela.
Being a billionaire is not inherently evil. What one does with those resources is the important question.
Quote from: trdsf on January 08, 2022, 11:46:47 AM
Being a billionaire is not inherently evil. What one does with those resources is the important question.
No, how one acquired that wealth is important, it is wrong if they gained it through exploitation of labour, or inheritance or other illegitimate means that don't involve earning it or working for it and just make you a parasite riding on the backs of your workers or in the case of inheritance, your family.
Quote
Quote from: Jason Harvestdancer on January 07, 2022, 02:15:13 PM
1. I'm talking about US Federal Reserve policy of money printing, which means I am discussing economic policy. I understand if that confuses you.
2. There is no sense of the word "capitalist" that describes Venezuela.
Most of their industry is in private hands, thus private property as well as private ownership of the means of production exist, sounds pretty Capitalist to me
Oh, I get it. You think Government ownership of the means of production is the same as private ownership of the means of production.
I understand your confusion.
Quote from: Jason Harvestdancer on January 09, 2022, 03:12:21 PM
Oh, I get it. You think Government ownership of the means of production is the same as private ownership of the means of production.
I understand your confusion.
No, it's just you are ignorant and do not understand that their economy is actually Capitalist.
Quote from: ProletarianBanner on January 09, 2022, 02:38:00 PM
No, how one acquired that wealth is important, it is wrong if they gained it through exploitation of labour, or inheritance or other illegitimate means that don't involve earning it or working for it and just make you a parasite riding on the backs of your workers or in the case of inheritance, your family.
Which comes down to how one defines 'exploitation'. If someone is fairly compensated for their work, with fair pay and fair benefits and fair hours, is that still exploitative?
Quote from: trdsf on January 09, 2022, 05:04:05 PM
Which comes down to how one defines 'exploitation'. If someone is fairly compensated for their work, with fair pay and fair benefits and fair hours, is that still exploitative?
Yes, as it is not truly fair, they extract the surplus value if the Workers' labour and they are not fully entitled to the fruits of their labour and are figuratively unable to reap what they sow and what they get paid is always minute compared to what the CEO makes. There is still private appropriation of wealth.
Quote from: trdsf on January 09, 2022, 05:04:05 PM
Which comes down to how one defines 'exploitation'. If someone is fairly compensated for their work, with fair pay and fair benefits and fair hours, is that still exploitative?
Also, since their goal is to maximize profit, it is more profitable for them to pay them lower wages and give them less benefits so that is what they often do.
Quote from: ProletarianBanner on January 09, 2022, 05:08:36 PM
Yes, as it is not truly fair, they extract the surplus value if the Workers' labour and they are not fully entitled to the fruits of their labour and are figuratively unable to reap what they sow and what they get paid is always minute compared to what the CEO makes. There is still private appropriation of wealth.
So even though I
explicitly stipulated fair wages and fair benefits and fair hours, you simply ignore that, Way to strawman there.
Quote from: ProletarianBanner on January 09, 2022, 05:09:41 PM
Also, since their goal is to maximize profit, it is more profitable for them to pay them lower wages and give them less benefits so that is what they often do.
Also completely ignoring the explicit stipulation of fair wages, benefits and hours. Are you capable of answering a question as posed, or do you have to twist it into something I didn't ask?
Quote from: trdsf on January 09, 2022, 05:21:45 PM
So even though I explicitly stipulated fair wages and fair benefits and fair hours, you simply ignore that, Way to strawman there.
I am not attempting to strawman, I am trying to explain that there is no such thing as a fair wage and that it is still exploitation of labour.
Quote from: ProletarianBanner on January 09, 2022, 05:24:42 PM
I am not attempting to strawman, I am trying to explain that there is no such thing as a fair wage and that it is still exploitation of labour.
"No such thing as a fair wage". Which means it's unfair even under communism, then.
I don't disagree that corporate executives are vastly overcompensated, but even without their exorbitant wages, you still need to have a hierarchy in order to be responsible for decision-making at departmental and organizational levels (and to be responsible if their decisions prove wrong), especially when unexpected events comes up. Not everything can wait on a committee or a vote.
And that means stratification is always going to exist. You can't get around it by rotating in new decision-makers by sortition because not everyone has the skillset necessary to make decisions on that scale. I am a fairly intelligent person, but I know that if I were tasked to run our agency, I'd make a dog's breakfast of it. You still have to fall back on (s)elections between people who
want the position (even if the candidates are weeded out by some interview process to determine that they actually have the skills necessary for decision-making)... and that takes you right back to organizational stratification again.
Large scale organizations, be they corporate or not, are not self-organizing, self-directing, or self-operating.
Quote from: trdsf on January 09, 2022, 05:45:13 PM
"No such thing as a fair wage". Which means it's unfair even under communism, then.
I don't disagree that corporate executives are vastly overcompensated, but even without their exorbitant wages, you still need to have a hierarchy in order to be responsible for decision-making at departmental and organizational levels (and to be responsible if their decisions prove wrong), especially when unexpected events comes up. Not everything can wait on a committee or a vote.
And that means stratification is always going to exist. You can't get around it by rotating in new decision-makers by sortition because not everyone has the skillset necessary to make decisions on that scale. I am a fairly intelligent person, but I know that if I were tasked to run our agency, I'd make a dog's breakfast of it. You still have to fall back on (s)elections between people who want the position (even if the candidates are weeded out by some interview process to determine that they actually have the skills necessary for decision-making)... and that takes you right back to organizational stratification again.
Large scale organizations, be they corporate or not, are not self-organizing, self-directing, or self-operating.
In a Communist Society there is no wage at all as it is moneyless, there is no money. In a Communist Society there is a gift economy "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" as Marx had worded it.
Quote from: trdsf on January 09, 2022, 05:45:13 PM
"No such thing as a fair wage". Which means it's unfair even under communism, then.
I don't disagree that corporate executives are vastly overcompensated, but even without their exorbitant wages, you still need to have a hierarchy in order to be responsible for decision-making at departmental and organizational levels (and to be responsible if their decisions prove wrong), especially when unexpected events comes up. Not everything can wait on a committee or a vote.
And that means stratification is always going to exist. You can't get around it by rotating in new decision-makers by sortition because not everyone has the skillset necessary to make decisions on that scale. I am a fairly intelligent person, but I know that if I were tasked to run our agency, I'd make a dog's breakfast of it. You still have to fall back on (s)elections between people who want the position (even if the candidates are weeded out by some interview process to determine that they actually have the skills necessary for decision-making)... and that takes you right back to organizational stratification again.
Large scale organizations, be they corporate or not, are not self-organizing, self-directing, or self-operating.
You mean within Socialism and in Socialism they ARE entitled to the fruits of their labour as they don't have a Capitalist extracting the surplus value of their labour thus there is no exploitation.
Quote from: ProletarianBanner on January 09, 2022, 05:49:28 PM
In a Communist Society there is no wage at all as it is moneyless, there is no money. In a Communist Society there is a gift economy "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" as Marx had worded it.
And this relies upon the unrealistic assumption that humans will act under enlightened self-interest, despite all evidence to the contrary.
Quote from: ProletarianBanner on January 09, 2022, 05:51:26 PM
You mean within Socialism and in Socialism they ARE entitled to the fruits of their labour as they don't have a Capitalist extracting the surplus value of their labour thus there is no exploitation.
It sounds like you're suggesting that the person responsible for the smooth and efficient operation of an organization is not also entitled to fair compensation, because they're not part of the direct production line.
You know, I don´t really agree with Banner. Not completely.
Namely, I think fair wage is possible.
But I do think she has a point, in a way.
I don´t think there is, in our global society, any instance of anyone accumulating enough wealth to become a bilionaire without there being no exploitation somewhere down the Line. I mean, even if, for instance, Jeff bezos treated all his employees well enough and said ´fuck the profit´ and still became as succesful as he did... the products he got and distributed still were made off the back suffering in other countries. That may seem like an unfair train of thought. But it is what I believe. I may like ´Douwe egberts´, a Coffee brand. For all I know the people in the company get treated well and get paid fairly. But they still probably buy their Coffee as dit cheap as possible from farmers who work in subpar circumstances for far too little pay. And they have had their own scandals of putting in too few Coffee in their pads for more money.
As i´ve said, this makes it so that I don´t think solely ´the wealthy´ are this brand of ´evil´. But us too, we are the wealth, overall. With our nice smartphones and meat nearly every day and our reliance on environment harming airconditioning and our plane-trips and... all things that are basically surplus, if we are honest. And that if we remain honest: harm most of our fellow man and the planet more than it aids them. I don't see how one can function outside of this, don't get me wrong. And if we were to end all economy, the world would also be a bad place. But still, unless one fights constantly and vigilantly for a drastically different global system, one in my book must concider him or herself as ´evil´. Just like about anyone else. And I do.
Funny thing about this is, while I thus, I believe, agree with Banner in that it is impossible to aqcuire this wealth in practice without being worth of the title ´evil´ and therefor it is pretty much fair to say that it is indeed evil to be a billionaire... I equally wholeheartedly believe that it is in practice impossible to create a communist society because this ´evilness´, this greed and selfishness and wilfull ignorance we all display and need to adhere to, to be able to function throughout the day is part of what makes us basically and fundamentally human. It is part of our nature.
A.d we can mitigate some of the worst parts of our nature. Indeed in a society, such should be our strife. But something will always be out of reach. Perfection, ultimate fairness, complete equality... it is important to keep failing in our quest to obtain these. But I am sure we never will.
So in the end, I probably dissagree with absolutely everyone here and just make a twat of myself.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2016/oct/18/hillary-clinton/clinton-correct-buffett-claimed-pay-lower-tax-rate/
In 2007, Buffett told NBC Nightly News that he pays a smaller tax rate than multiple employees in his office.
In 2011, Buffett wrote an op-ed in the New York Times called "Stop Coddling the Super-Rich." In the article, Buffett said that his taxes amounted to "only 17.4 percent of my taxable income â€" and that’s actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office."
In 2013, he told CNBC that while his tax rate rose 8 to 9 points more that year, "The differential between me and the rest of the office, not just my secretary but the rest of the office, was greater than that. It'll be closer, but I'll probably be the lowest-paying taxpayer in the office."
A quick phone call to Buffett’s office confirmed this fact-check. Buffett’s assistant Debbie Bosanek -- the secretary Buffett mentions -- confirmed her boss pays a lower tax rate than she does.
I am an investor my former Aerospace company. They have not paid a penny in taxes yet made money hand over fist using all the tax credits they could.
CEO compensation has grown 940% since 1978
Typical worker compensation has risen only 12% during that time
https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-compensation-2018/
I have learned some tax tricks vs the IRS from billionaires over the years and once in a while I will play one. Having a salary pretty much dooms you to pay taxes. For investors or business owners with high earnings and a tax rate of 18%..yet you can secure perpetual 5% loan, why take the income? Don't sell that stock...but when you do capital gains are still your friend over a salary.
Almost anyone can own their own time after around 15 years of hard-core working and saving. I waited to expand my net worth to 50 times my annual spend, however the rule is that you can clock out at 25x, no matter your age.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/reel/video/p09qwdp6/playing-with-fire-the-millennial-movement-to-quit-work
My problem with people who have extreme wealth is the amount of power they have over the government. The super-rich have the ability to simply write their own rules. I have no problem with some people having more money or material possessions than others but in a wealthy country like the US everyone should have the basic necessities of food, housing, and healthcare, whether one is employed or not. Taxation should be progressive to the degree that people cannot obtain enough power to circumvent a democratic system, which is what is happening. If people have the option of not working and living on basic necessities then entering into an employment agreement where people are "exploited for their labor" is an individual's choice.
Quote from: ProletarianBanner on January 09, 2022, 03:14:59 PM
No, it's just you are ignorant and do not understand that their economy is actually Capitalist.
Imagine being so radically communist that you place socialism next to capitalism.
Meh. “communal†living is agreeable, the Indians and the aborigines are somewhat evidence of that. But communism will not work with invention and technology. This is not to say that invention and technology are even a good thing. We have plenty of evidence that technologyt may be the downfall of humanity due to their arrogance as “housekeepers†of the world. But nom-the-less, technology is a extension of a more freedoms productivity awarded system.
And frankly, while perhaps the world would be better off with a communal system, life would be terribly boring. There would be no internet, no sports, no media to watch anything and no entertainment. Seriously. Just consider life as we know it would not exist. Communal living pretty much is a stagnant technological and manufacturing style of life. The Indians invented nothing…the aborigines invented nothing, communism as an earlier system would have been wiped out within a few years. Their is no incentive. No reward. You are ignoring the drive of humanity to invent. Necessity, as we all know, is the mother of invention. We would still be throwing rocks and jabbing with wooden spears.
Communism offers no incentive to creat, to invent, to be better. It Is a proven wasteland of thought. It would be a tedious and mundane life compared to what we have now, however not being aware that such things were possible perhaps communal living could be considered a superior lifestyle…..as long as the rest of the world did the same. But humans, although preferring communal living would not succeed in the long run as humans are an aggressive creature.
Pure communism is a non functional dream, it is a forced lifestyle that not everyone agree with. No doubt that some societies lived a communal life but they would now be in reservations while progressive thinking humans are on the moon. Whether that in itself is good or bad is, to this argument, irrelevant.