I agree with what Trainwreck is suggesting - in that he's trying to argue that there is an individual barrier one has to overcome in order to properly let go of capital, as to the extent a Utopic society would need at its heart. It is a critical issue I'm observing; But in as far as everyone is yet expected to act within the confines of a capitalist society, that good intention doesn't extend far beyond itself. There is a case to be had, for the viewer to further adopt that sentiment - which is however how we return into the community aspect, labor and taxes, to which the Twitch Streamer Money is merely a stimulus to kickstart something that should be able to run on its own; But yet again can only be 'true socialism' once the community also commits to it - and that's something that has been tried a lot - with the one final caveat to that ultimately being, in my opinion, the global market. So that European countries for instance are as close as it gets - as they yet have to engage with the financial aspect of global society in order to participate in the common wealth.
So ... uhm ... I don't want to argue about what Hasan is to do with his money. I guess ... that's however what it would mean to be a socialist. So, me telling him
what he is to do with his money, although I live in a different country where we already have socialized systems ... err ... well ... let's say I didn't ... .
I've thought of it at various occasions, as conservatives make it clear that taxes - to them - are essentially theft. And I suppose that on the surface so, all of
"us" socialists "who are secretly capitalists", because we only preach but don't do - are hypocrites. But say he did it - if it can't expand to meet all of our
hopes and expectations, it's a failed endeavour. Or so, if he did it, I'd have to join, now you'd have to join - until we all joined ... which is basically what
I advocate in terms of Church - or so, the Ekklesia.
Like Jesus said, that it is easier for a Camel to thread a needle, than it is for a Rich person to enter the Kingdom of Heavens, we must overcome ... well ...
Wealth. As so, "by definition", a Rich person is someone who holds wealth - which in our world is the same as 'withholding' wealth. Semantics? Well, logic.
Sure, 'withholding' isn't the same as 'holding' - so, the semantic change, changes the function of the statement - and hence the new statement needs to be seen
for what it is. Respectively do we talk about greed, whenever now a person accumulates wealth - but neglects what we might call a social obligation to share (of) it,
or rather: Do good with it.
Now, the Bible also acknowledges property. Canaan - in very simple terms - is, by the Bible's narrative, property of the people of Israel. Further did God instruct
the tribes to mint currency. Also does one of the Commandments read: Though shalt not steal. Or so another: "Nor covet thy neighbour's ...". So do we yet again
have a contradiction of sort, between the messenging of the old versus that of the new testament. So is Judaism basically the conservative, and Christianity the
progressive take on things.
To resolve this issue, we can return to the concept of greed. That concept doesn't exist without some - at least in the abstract - envy unto the wealthy; And the more
worldly power the wealth can bring to bear, the more greed manifests regardless of what envy one might have. I guess ... envy for being able to live herpderp.
So is it true, certainly, that us westerners have to reconcile with the fact that a lot of our wealth is based in exploitation. And in that sense we cannot say
that we really 'deserved' ANYTHING that we paid for - except for what we might call immediate compensation. So, the food that I buy, I didn't deserve it because
I use money through which a good that exists on the market is "leveraged" into my posession. Even if, on paper, the chain of labor downstream is entirely consensual,
the matter of fair compensation is yet just an abstract lost in the market forces. Or conditions.
In other words might we here speak of bargaining and bargaining power - where in the market as it is, that bargaining mostly takes place outside of our control.
Hereby it is I, with the means afforded to me, who is then required to give myself the rights to claim what I deem necessary. Lest I want to guilt-trip over each
purchase I make. And the alternative is: Starvation. Dehydration not so much, as water is something freely afforded to most of us.
So yea - maybe this is too harsh of a view. It certainly is at some point, because "much of a choice" isn't something that is freely afforded to us. Neither can we
mount much of a reasonable anything to change that. Well, sure - not without actually doing it. But ... well. I try to spare me the Buts.
The idea would be to come to agreements - to at the long end have an understanding of who can do what for the good that it brings, rather than the money. And in that
sense, that which I deserve is that which is freely afforded to me, as it is - we may say - redeemed from my personal entitlement. So, whatever work I do were then
what I chose to do - which is to entail the conditions that this work requires to be done effectively. But as I so afford it freely unto the greater whole, it is, from
my perspective, what it deserves for all I can do.
So is there a part self-sacrifice to it. This way the system is kickstarted - which is to say that the system, through our labour, is filled with the things that are
afforded to us, for us to then enter a symbiotic relationship with it.
Now, how or when to get rid of money thereby - is probably the tricky part. It's tricky, because money implies individual compensation for labor - to make the whole
'pricetag' thing work and make sense and be usefull and all that. And here is where I would argue socialism comes in, as without money, we had communism. And here
I think both are wrong - in that socialism is a system that entails a degree of charity. That charity is to support those who cannot work - or need assistance with
their situation. And that would say, that we in Germany have a form of Socialism.
Now, to make it 'true' socialism, we'd have to take a few steps to set things into motion such that we approach communism. The problem would be, that communism
only works if there is a critical mass of support for it. Or is. That is ... the problem.
In other words does the assumption start on the basis of partial support - and so we're back at Church. So, what we can do with the collective leverage we attain
by organising.
And that then implies, to me, that true socialism must be a collective effort - and is only meaningful in as far as we can come to progressiely better agreements,
on a global scale.