@hunda

Do you imagine that #socialism or #communism DON'T lead to inequality?

No, the real answer is this; inequality is part of reality. People are not equal in every way, and never will be, and it's not even a problem if you think about it. Does anybody really object to the fact that this person is a better singer, that person is taller, that other person over there is smarter?

@AlexanderKingsbury @hunda
1) you're distracting from the argument. OP criticises capitalism. Alright. How is criticising socialism a response?

2) i'd love to hear your definition of capitalism

3) "inequality engine" – i suppose that means it generates inequality where it has not been before. As has already been mentioned, no one thinks that everyone has the same skills or interests etc. Communists/socialists are usually concerned with economic inequality.

@WombatPriest @hunda

1) I criticize both socialism and communism, as they are the only alternatives.

2) Okay.

3) Which is also a foolish thing to pursue; it's not even what many people want, and it would be wrong to force it on them. If someone wants to take a vow of poverty, who am I to stop them? If someone wishes to be richer than I, again, why should I object?

@AlexanderKingsbury @hunda
1) what about anarchism, feudalism,...
Also, you're again distracting from the point. Just because one system is bad doesn't mean that others are good. You're commiting to a logical fallacy (tu quoque / whataboutism)

2) are you gonna tell me your definition of capitalism?

3) Again a distraction. You claimed that inequality was a part of life. But I don't see how economic inequality is an unchangeable law of nature. Whether you want to change it is another topic.

@WombatPriest @hunda

1) Anarchism is a political situation or system, not an economic one. Feudalism is a blend of political and economic, but economically it comes down to more or less centralized state control; socialism.

2) I don't have a personally generated one. I tend to use things like dictionaries.

3) Economic inequality exists only insofar as humans interact; a hermit living in total isolation has no meaningful economic inequality. So it's hardly an "unchangeable law of nature".

@AlexanderKingsbury @hunda
1) anarchism is the absence of hierarchy. So there can't be bosses in anarchism. So the economy would need to work differently. Feudalism is not socialism, because the definition of socialism is not state control, but control by the masses ("dictatorship of the proletariat"). Feudalism is the opposite.

2) so what does your dictionary say?

3) right then. So your original claim is wrong when we look at economic inequality, rather than inequality of skills etc.

@WombatPriest @hunda

Having a boss in the sense of an employer is incompatible with a free society, but having a boss in the sense of a manager is acceptable as long as the manager is ultimately democratically accountable to the workers in the firm and recallable.

@WombatPriest @hunda

Overthrow the movie directors, and their oppression! All power to the actors and crew!

More seriously, it would be pretty hard to run a large workplace without at least some managers. I think many colloquial notions of a boss are inclusive of what you describe though.

Democracy at the workplace level would be more effective due to smaller scale of the organization compared to a polity. Also, managers incentives can be aligned to the long term interest of the workers.

@jlou @hunda just in general economy should move away from trying to benefit shareholders and some obscure "market" metrics that don't have any real meaning; and move towards benefitting society and providing fullfilling work in a humane and healthy way

There's really just one dumb economic model between us and paradise
Quite depressing sometimes