Quote:
Originally Posted by rkzenrage
My communist/socialist scenario:
Woods, cabin A, cabin B.
A busts ass all summer/spring long chopping wood, growing and putting up veggies, hunting and storing meat, repairing and maintaining cabin so it is tight and dry, barn is large and in good shape for animals, plenty of hay harvested for the long winter, working hard all season long, taking care of well so there is plenty of fresh water.
Cabin B
Lazy, just enough to get by all summer and spring, traded cow for wood and drink, not really harvesting or growing much at all, not really doing many repairs much less any maintenance.
Winter hits and it is a doozy, cabin A has just enough to get by safely with enough to be able to have enough to continue to survive after the winter into the following seasons.
It is clear that cabin B will die after the second month of snow.
No sane person would think that it is ok to "distribute" cabin A's hard work to cabin B so they both die... he/she should die as their obvious suicide intended.
It does not matter if cabin A was, perhaps, a bit smarter, stronger or naturally more talented in farming arts, some of us just have to try harder.
It could have just as easily been the other way around with B being the more talented and A working four times as hard to do ten times as much.
|
But that's bullshit. Sure, it happens sometimes, but I think a better scenario would be:
Cabin A and fifty of cabin A's paid buddies grow all their food very quickly and efficiently. So it goes, A has the cash to pay the buddies, fine. But with his cash A also grabbed all the decent land around cabin B and is paying B enough to survive on over the summer to grow food for A. Consequently, B doesnt have any land to grow food on, nor the time to grow his own food because he's growing food for A for pitiful wages. Winter rolls around and A has a massive store of food, wheras B is already freezing to death and starving to boot.
Now, A has two options. A can be charitable, nice, and reasonable and give B some food, or can just blame B for the lack of food.
What anarchosocialism proposes is
not that A
has to give B anything, but that society should be restructured so that A would
willingly give B the food because thats just how it should be.
No sane person would think that it is ok for B to starve because A had more money to begin with.