>>399526Comrade, it is not circumstance. Who is born into being a landlord? Who is incidentally made a predatory lender? The oppression of the common people is invariably a conscious decision, like any crime. Of course, the rot of the bourgeoisie extends far beyond their own actions, into their children and representatives, who, from a materialist perspective, have been raised up in a system which teaches them kulakism is correct, and will receive their own, albeit reduced, educational sentences, for the benefit of the working people, of course. As a matter of pedantism, "slavery" is such a barbaric term, we prefer to say such individuals are compelled to contribute to the revolution.
>the commie shit makes no sense to me. punishing someone based on they circumstances, be they richer or poorer makes no sense to me.Do you think I'm actually advocating for gulags? Lol
It's only joke
I'm stretching it above but the basic theory is that you really don't amass and sustain huge amounts of wealth by accident, generally speaking. It's an intentional thing and it takes pie away from the poors, and most rich people don't even bother to do anything good with it. Shit floats to the top and all that. You could say the rich and corporations aren't obligated to do anything good with their wealth but
1.) That's a pretty recent way of thinking, it only really came about with the advent of Reaganomics. Up to that point, while corpos were no angels, there was at least a societal expectation (in the States at least) that they give back to their local communities in some way.
2.) They technically aren't, sure, but that's like if we're kids and I tell you you've been on the Xbox for an hour and you tell me you're not obligated to pass me the controller. True, but it doesn't make it any less shitty. While it's important to respect legal rights, all rights are ultimately derived from a bunch of people sitting down in a room, usually very long ago, and deciding what is and is not morally reasonable for a person to do. My point is it's kind of bullshit to be like "but muh right to free enterprise" when rights are fundamentally just the exact rules which we use to convey simple ideas (as an example, if the law was "don't steal" rather than specifically theft, larceny, etc., we'd have a very difficult time defining what "stealing" is.) and simple ideas of what is and is not acceptable in a society change over time.
Through that lens, the Soviets for example classified... being too rich, or more accurately being a landlord in a serf system, as being equivalent to being a slave owner or stealing from the people as a collective. Do I agree? No. It's hard to take the Soviet Union, especially the early Soviet Union, as a moral authority on just about anything, and in reality, obviously, gulags were just where the Soviets shoved anybody they didn't like and told them to work to death.
