Practically speaking it doesn't work

well also they had a shitload of management positions that did literally nothing all day

Because if everyone owns something then what the fuck is the point of a manager

collective ownership also just

goes against human nature

like, if you don't own something why do you give a shit what happens to it

^

The other issue of redistribution of wealth

Firstly

the problem of scale.

At the end of the day if you take that 99% of the money in 1% of the populations hands and divide it among the other 99% of the population the actual amount of money they get is fuck all.

I did the math on Bill Gates and it was like 1,000 dollars per person

That's minimum wage's monthly income.

That and 99% of their shit is physical property

which costs too much to be divided

And lastly

Money has to be concentrated to actually be worth anything.

If i own an office building that's worth a lot

I can do a lot with an office building

if I own one fuckin square foot of an office building

its completely useless.

and also a beurocratic nightmare to even use the building now.

Its supposed to be literal.
The building is owned by someone.
You redistribute the wealth of that person including the building.

How.

The building costs too much to give it all to one person

its also not useful if you don't own a big chunk of it.

You can't sell it to anyone, because nobody can afford to buy the entire thing because you redistributed all the fucking wealth

Furthermore redistributing the wealth is fucking retarded anyway, because even if you did somehow snap your fingers and do it, 0.05 seconds later someone would buy something and wealth would be uneven.

June collective ownership doesn't work beyond like 3-4 people.

You have to give it to the state at that point

which isn't the same

If you have a car, and 100 people own it, try to use the car.

So do they pay a fee when they join the company to buy part of it

How the fuck does everyone owning everything in the entire company work
Someone bought the equipment.

someone handles the money and signs paychecks

Then who is the 'collective'

The goal of socialism is to establish communism

a system in which everyone is equal

In a system with no property, no government, and no money

"From each according to their ability to each according to their needs" is advocating for equality of outcome dude

If one produces more, and the other needs more, the extra the one produced goes to the other

it makes no mention of any exchange

it just goes.

FROM each

yeah

Everyone has what they *need*

and nothing more.

You literally just said "You are not supposed to get more than you need"

Granted they do anyway because marxism is retarded

There is what is SUPPOSED to happen and what ACTUALLY happens in the case of these... systems.

For reference we're talking about equality of outcome yes

which its not

Look at all these fucking essentialists

Holy shit Drywall you fucking anarchist lmao

Constructivism = gender social construct

Essentialism = Biological differences determine gender roles

Which is bullshit

Constructivism, at least when it comes to the differences between sexes, is legit false.

There are actual demonstrable physiological and neurological differences.

Its almost like we have a different god damn chromosome, the literal blueprints of our bodies aren't the same.

yeah

Its been proven repeatedly you cannot force someone to change their sexual preference.

Trying tends to lead to them killing themselves

Almost like conversion therapy was a mistake

havent

link it

You guys see the meme test?
everyonje I knew was an edgy boi

Yeah but its better than the virgin political compass

"Yer a centrist bright"
> Nationalist Libertarian

ok sure

It's trash because as was mentioned earlier left/right is archaic and stupid.

yeah you are correct

it should be socialism vs capitalism

Behold muh altruisitic nihilism

Some of the questions are too vague on this too

for me?

Hobbesian.

I dont know, never read Hobbes.

Materialism should be higher imo

I don't think there's anything supernatural.

Idealism vs pragmatism is in balance, which seems accurate.

because i take a pragmatic approach to my ideals.

Hedonism should be higher, but the problem with hedonism is that I'm less concerned with obtaining pleasure and more concerned with minimizing suffering.
Though I suppose that there are only a few things I need to be happy, so asceticism should be present in moderation.

Rationalism is right.

Skepticism is correct as well.

Nihilism vs Moralism is

fine

A lot of my viewpoints seem to conflict and that's fine

its the belief there's no meaning to life

or anything

From an objective standpoint I agree with that statement, though through the rejection of objective meaning I assign subjective meaning.

I mean

define 100% nihilist

Nothing matters to the universe

but shit still matters to *me*

A lot of things dont matter to me

I pick and choose what does

Good thing I enjoy doing meaningless things then

I strive for an average day in which I feel nothing. I find peace in that emptiness. I don't bother myself with things like getting angry or having enemies, because it brings disquiet into my life. I like things quiet.