My point of view is that the money all capitalist have is a resource that was taken from the rest of us. So donating all of it back would just be the bare minimum someone can do.

After donating all of it back, you're right we also need to figure out a plan to distribute it properly in the first place, and most important make a system and society that's gonna provide for everyone.

And no kidding no one found a answer to that, from the beginning of human society we only very briefly achieved some systems that's almost there. But no one never had the answer. There is always some problems in any society.

What i know for sure is that capitalism is not only not the answer, but is actually a system that's getting more and more corrupted, with increasing problems. To the point it's leading us directly to a wall.

So in all the different view we can have of the world, all the different system we can use for society, there is no right system, there is worse than capitalism, but there is also better. I strive for not the definitive best, just better...

[–] HardNut@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

My point of view is that the money all capitalist have is a resource that was taken from the rest of us.

Why?

you're right we also need to figure out a plan to distribute it properly in the first place

I didn't suggest that. Redistribution of resources doesn't work, because people don't easily comply with their wealth being taken away. This idea requires the assumption that it's not theirs to begin with, so we're back to the first question: why is a capitalist's wealth not rightfully theirs?

[–] Funkytom467@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Because we have limited resources, no riches can come to you without profiting of the work of others. If you really want to get your own view you can just look for yourself how rich people got their wealth and judge by yourself is that normal.

I meant that for the extremely wealthy to be precise.

Some moderately rich people are actually contributing positively. They are examples of what capitalism used to be, a system that wasn't perfect but could still lead society in a positive direction, sometimes better than the alternatives.

Redistribution of resources only works to some extent. Not to redistribute all the wealth in one go sure, but to balance the inequity continuously. For exemple taxe on income could be such a way. And like you said some rich people are ok with it and are philanthropic even.

But the true goal of society would be to distribute riches correctly in the first place. So we don't have to rely on philanthropy.

And yeah i don't think capitalism distribute it correctly. So it's theirs in our capitalistic society, but it isn't rightfully in my opinion.

[–] HardNut@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Because we have limited resources, no riches can come to you without profiting from the work of others.

Why is this true, and why is this a problem?

look for yourself how rich people got their wealth and judge by yourself is that normal.

In almost all cases I can think of, a rich person became rich because they provided a product or service that others saw value in, and this generally works for the betterment of civilization.

Ford got rich off cars, the people benefitted by gaining access to transportation. JP Morgan got rich off trains, same thing, he provided a transportation service that people willfully used. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs gave us home computers, despite whatever your opinion is for each of them. Jeff Bezos got rich because he made the online marketplace so ridiculously easy to use, a service people enjoy and see value in.

This is the principle reason they got rich in all of these cases: they sold something the people wanted, at a price they were willing to.

Some moderately rich people are actually contributing positively.

Can you describe what some of these moderately rich people are doing better than the mega rich people?

But the true goal of society would be to distribute riches correctly in the first place.

Why is this the goal of society? How do you determine it's been distributed correctly?

[–] Funkytom467@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

Do you think it's false? Because unless you don't get it i'm not sure i'm interested in formulating logically a trivia.

And it's not always a problem. When is it not, only if it's balanced by making a plus-value on that work. And of course if its done within some ethical rules. (For exemple no slavery.) That plus-value is what's better for moderately rich people who can create jobs and services without the problems that most very rich creates...

I think all the services you quoted would have been implemented either way. Some like cars for example might have been at the expense of better ways. An exemple is how, in the us, highways replaced the railroad system for profit.

In general, the way they implemented those solutions was through corruption like that and unethical work condition. (And it goes beyond the service they got rich on, to what they are doing currently too)

Moreover this idea of selling things at the (highest) price people are willing to buy is a great factor in creating many of thoses problems.

It's the same logic that makes work conditions unethical. That includes using worker in other countries wich conditions are literally considered unethical in the country the goods are sold. But to a lesser degree also the bad conditions of work in many field.

Taking healthcare as a exemple, how do you expect a nurse to sell her work at a higher price. If you want a nurse to give the best service to society or even be ethical, you can't raise the price?

So it goes either way, either healthcare become expensive. Or like in my country, it's free, but the conditions becomes worse and worse. Both being bad for society.

So maybe not the goal, but a goal of society is to distribute those resources correctly. Simply because it's necessary for us to live together.