It’s okay to be nuanced about this. In a system where one person can “make” this much, things are so obviously out of whack that it’s not contradictory to want that kind of wealth to be heavily taxed, while still holding the view that in an anarchist system taxation is not desirable.
Yeah, it’s also worth noting that “wealth tax” is the compromise. It’s the starting point for a good faith negotiation, which works within the bounds of the current systems. Because the alternative is “storm the compounds. We’d only need to livestream a mob eating like a dozen of the richest before the rest get the message and fall in line.”
I don’t disagree in principle. But pragmatically, while a wealth tax is an imperfect system for wealth redistribution, it’s still realisable on meaningful timescales. It can be done while working to achieve true horizontalidad.
Wait, taxes can now be voluntary?
’Cause mutual aid is something we praxis, but being threatened with violence for not complying to your burglary is “pseudointellectualism”?
Then either you’re highly confused what /c/ you’re in, or you really believe we should gulag you for the community’s sake.
You can’t be anarchist and want to rob people. Those are incompatible practices.
So now Musk is richer than the next four richest combined?
I think this is getting a little out of control.
He makes about $150,000,000 a day, passively from his assets.
Wealth tax now.
Fucking nauseating
You folks hate theory, huh.
It’s okay to be nuanced about this. In a system where one person can “make” this much, things are so obviously out of whack that it’s not contradictory to want that kind of wealth to be heavily taxed, while still holding the view that in an anarchist system taxation is not desirable.
Yeah, it’s also worth noting that “wealth tax” is the compromise. It’s the starting point for a good faith negotiation, which works within the bounds of the current systems. Because the alternative is “storm the compounds. We’d only need to livestream a mob eating like a dozen of the richest before the rest get the message and fall in line.”
Nuance about larceny gets you Sweden. Larceny is the wrong approach to horizontalidad. You want to compensate workers for yields, not rob’m.
I don’t disagree in principle. But pragmatically, while a wealth tax is an imperfect system for wealth redistribution, it’s still realisable on meaningful timescales. It can be done while working to achieve true horizontalidad.
How?
By removing the financial power that people who hoard wealth hold.
That can happen while building new, non-heirarchical systems.
That financial power is lobbying, enabled by taxation (us anarchists righteously call it «larceny»), that hoards wealth for the state…
How…
That link is far too specific. This one gets the point across much more clearly.
you forgot to append the #Against anchor.
it should be depressing many people still don’t comprehend the problem with compulsory larceny.
Oh I just now realized that you’re calling taxes, “compulsory larceny”. Literally just “tax is theft” with a pseudointellectual patina.
Lol ok bud. Go live on SeaLand or some shit
Wait, taxes can now be voluntary?
’Cause mutual aid is something we praxis, but being threatened with violence for not complying to your burglary is “pseudointellectualism”?
No, trying to sound smart by using big words was the pseudointellectual part.
“Taxes are theft” is just the stupid bullshit I believed when I was 12 years old.
Then either you’re highly confused what /c/ you’re in, or you really believe we should gulag you for the community’s sake.
You can’t be anarchist and want to rob people. Those are incompatible practices.
Triple checked, “12 year old dictionary friendly words.”
The one percenters of the one percenters just got one percented.
(Actually it’s even worse than that I think.)
No its fine. No worse than having a single billionaire, really.