Marxists say no; equity outcome and reduction of inequality is paramount.

No, I don't see that as being acceptable

Capitalists would say overall wealth and productivity is the most important factor.

the system is not perfect but burning it down to be replaced with everyone is equally poor is in my eyes even worse

Not everyone is equally poor, but we don't allow people to become absolutely poor in the first place

Insofar as the *de facto* implementations of socialism have gone so far, I agree Nordhand.

redistribution of wealth in society

The problem with Marx's theory is that it doesn't incentivise productivity.

And so it may (if remaining relatively uncorrupt) reduce inequality, but it also makes everyone, on average, poorer.

I think that's the critical flaw in Marx's theory.

A failure to understand human nature and the response to incentives.

what the system needs is a incentive for the super rich to put money back down into the bottom lair

Combined with corruption breaking key links in central planning.

You can't incentivise the rich to do so

Like when Zimbabwe starved because Mugabe replaced all the white farmers with government cronies, and the "Breadbasket of Africa" went fallow.

@Capitán Alatriste that is a nonsense self affirming point.

As time goes on everything is "More than we saw before"

Unless it is static

?

The purchasing power of middle class households has been declining over the years, this is not undisputed

The whole "Wealth inequality gap is further than ever seen before" bs.

@Capitán Alatriste https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/06/21/sure-the-middle-class-is-shrinking-30-of-americans-are-too-rich-to-be-middle-class-now/#7c15c6f621c8

Here is the proper report: https://www.urban.org/research/publication/growing-size-and-incomes-upper-middle-class/view/full_report

Yep

The big difference between capitalism and socialism in this front is there is more class fluidity in capitalism.

So the first article is based on the second?

Yes

Yeah, so the fatal mistake Vaush is making here is presuming that, if collective ownership of the means of the production occurred, productivity would remain the same or increase. As all implementations of communism have shown us throughout history, the opposite of this occurs. Productivity occurs because a small subset of highly-driven individuals (entrepreneurs) drive forward productivity, as shown by the Pareto Principle.

Humans are reward based. If there is something an individual can get no one else does, a goal, they are more apt to work harder.

Hell even Lenon saw this towards the end. Iirc so did stalin.

Lenin saw this so he used created private incentives using the NEP. Stalin saw this so he created punishments as incentives. Both realized incentives were needed, its just Stalin's incentives were absolutely brutal

beating will continue until morale improves

<:Commie_ball:466404411535785995>

Joe act so crazy that Bernie looks normal

@Astral_Andy do you realize that this isn't sargon's official server right?

well we are the better one. the other is pay to play

Even if this was Sargon's offical server how does that make us his offical hivemind?

@galesteppes I didn't, but it doesn't really matter.

Philosophical discussion is philosophical discussion, wherever it is, and this seems like a good forum for it.

Yup we like to throw the shit