Post #3364402

2026-06-12 15:35 UTC

It’s more about allowing vestiges of the current system to exist to ease the transfer to a more equitable system. When systems are ended abruptly, it tends to have unforseen consequences. We need to treat society as the living construct that it is. It’s very ill right now, so we put it on life support by infusing some socialism, let it stabilize, then add more socialism until we have a system that is truly egalitarian. I don’t think there’s an inherent problem with people having a (reasonably) large amount of wealth. We just need to make it so having that wealth doesn’t harm anyone else, or deter anyone else from gaining wealth. In other words, let money obsessed people have some money, just make it an amount that every human could achieve, if they wanted to, and make it kind of pointless by making sure every living being has the best quality of life possible, whether they pursue wealth or not. Like the Scandinavian model, we need a system that steers society towards altruism, community, and egalitarianism.

Replies (1)

@Maeve@kbin.earth 2026-06-12 15:55

But... That's like dengism with extra steps and money, if I understand either, correctly. 100 mn is not achievable by most, regardless of how hard they work. Assuming a 40 hour work week (which is too many hours, in my opinion), $100k/yr would require $48/hr pay rate. Deduct taxes at an assumed rate (say 30%) to cover cleaner infrastructure, education, health, clean water, social programs, how much is left? Even if we immediately nationalize all necessities for living, there are still expenses on both sides, bringing housing, water, food, education up to par, for example, on the government side, and travel, clothing (which is a necessity, in my estimation), pencils, books, computers, furniture, dishes, on the private side. So it's not going to be overnight, and with hours will be necessarily long, for a time. The current generations may never realize gains from our investments; but generations behind us may.

Open ##3364401