While there's a lot I agree with there, it seems like there's some assumptions made that are doing a lot of the heavy lifting. I guess it's more of a difference in philosophy, but it seems like a core part of your statement is "people given the opportunity to cooperate without risk to themselves would provide enough for everyone, and whatever they don't end up providing is unnecessary."
It's fair to say that there are a lot of things we don't need, but it seems a bit flippant to say those things are completely useless. I'm all for strong safety nets that allow people to give to others without having to sacrifice their own wellbeing, but it seems like you're talking about a quality of life decrease for a large number of people in order to achieve that.
You shouldn't have to work to exist. You shouldn't have to be useful to anyone else to be a part of a community
I guess I'm not well versed enough on communist principles but how does this work even on the simplest level? Work has to be done for a person to have shelter, food, etc and that is pretty much unavoidable for now.
How can people both be not obligated to provide anything to the community, while the community is obligated to provide things for them? Is it just assumed that enough people will still want to work to keep the system sustainable?
I'd have to think Newell has a lot more skin in the game or passion for his platform. He actually believes in the business and what they do, instead of just viewing it as a way to make money
Is there ever a good time for that type of company? Hemorrhaging customers and being saddled to the brim with debt seem like pretty big problems at any time
Because authoritarian dictators have never been overthrown by their people? Not entirely disagreeing with you, it's a big hurdle to overcome for change but it does happen in plenty of countries
Amazon pays pretty decently but it's just god awful work. I worked in a warehouse briefly and made more than I had anywhere else entry level, but sorting boxes for 9 hours straight on night shifts isn't worth it
I don't know about elsewhere in the world, but if you've ever seen the President arrive somewhere in the US this was laughable. There's helicopters circling for miles
Women have been allowed in combat positions since around 2015. It's been a slow integration and there's very few, because of the exact point I made that the physical standards and training are very difficult for most women.
While there's a lot I agree with there, it seems like there's some assumptions made that are doing a lot of the heavy lifting. I guess it's more of a difference in philosophy, but it seems like a core part of your statement is "people given the opportunity to cooperate without risk to themselves would provide enough for everyone, and whatever they don't end up providing is unnecessary."
It's fair to say that there are a lot of things we don't need, but it seems a bit flippant to say those things are completely useless. I'm all for strong safety nets that allow people to give to others without having to sacrifice their own wellbeing, but it seems like you're talking about a quality of life decrease for a large number of people in order to achieve that.