how do you enforce compassionate, willing sharing when you enforced the system in the first place through violence?

Alright

@Beemann The easy answer is "read marx"

xmrsmoothxToday at 2:28 PM
I'm not really sure I can explain it any simpler: capitalism and the ideal society described earlier cannot coexist, by your own admission, because individuals cannot be held responsible for the existence of others.

the easy answer is "I did and I'm not convinced, try again"

But marx advocates for forceful acquisition of the means of production

You imply here that individuals should be held responsible for the existence of others.

he does, yes

You can't have it both ways.

@>_ "held responsible" is not identical with "use force", since by your own admission, families are "held responsible" but are not systems held via force

if I forcibly rob someone until he gives me the money when I havent used a gun, he's not a compassionate and willing participant

Either individuals should be held responsible for the existence of others, or they shouldn't.

Family's in this system under current law I admit are "held responsible" by legal obligation.

Meaning they are forced to feed their kids or will have their kids taken away.

"families are "held responsible" but are not systems held via force"

and they often fall apart as a result

@xmrsmoothx The thing I love about capitalism is that in capitalism you are forced to compassionately sell your own production or starve

We're talking about voluntary, compassionate families though.

Not families held together by force.

right and those families fall apart too

When you expand the definition of family to include everyone, you include those dysfunctional families.

which means the system only works for those who are compassionate, for those not compassionate, the system does not work.

🤔 What we're talking about when we say "families" in this particular discussion is "a group who voluntarily shares their labour with others out of implicit compassion".

the real question then is, do these people just fall out of the system, or disrupt the system

I would argue that not one family works that way

What about those who do not participate however have compassion for their immediate families and friends, are they somehow not compassionate because they don't partake in feeding a random homeless man 3 states away?

I would also point out that even if a family does work that way at one point in time, it is not necessarily a permanent state of affairs

No family shares their labour because of compassion

there are always limits to people's compassion

@>_ I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

Sure they offer their labour for far lower than teh market value

You're bringing in terms such as compassionate.

sometimes close to zero

but each one expects a thing in return

that being love and compassion at least

You understand that compassion can willingly exist within the free market. **Willingly.**

@>_ I do understand that.

And it does, as I've said many times.

That orange nigger better fucking don't take away citizenship

lol

Alright then, your proposed ideal social structure can exist within the existing structure.

Either she has blocked me or intentionally ignoreing every post i make 😭