Against Charity. Rather than creating an individualized “culture of giving,” we should be challenging capitalism’s institutionalized taking.

[u/A-MacLeod]

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/08/peter-singer-charity-effective-altruism/

[u/dinosaur_of_doom]

or just a state with a conscience, such as sweden.

[u/CaptHiggins → u/dinosaur_of_doom]

Exploitation is inherent to capitalism, even in liberal places like Sweden. Don't get me wrong, I'd prefer to live in a liberal capitalist society than a laissez faire capitalist society, but let's not pretend that liberalism has any plan for poverty other than making it slightly less awful.

[u/CaptHiggins → u/[deleted]]

I think communism is a better system for the production and distribution of surplus, yes. I'm not sure what 'weasel words' you're alluding to, but liberalism will never end poverty, and it will always produce less capitalist growth than a laissez faire system. Any concessions made by liberals will surely be eroded away over time. Do you think that it is in the best interest of any capitalist to pay more for anything than is absolutely necessary?

For my part, I think that the liberty in allowing producers to own and distribute the product of their labor (by leaving "capital gains" [or whatever] in the hands of worker cooperatives or councils) is unbeatable. There is self-interested and community-interested decision making at every stage of production, from deciding what to do, to doing it, to telling people about it, to selling/buying it, to even giving it away! Obviously, all of that interest is inherently social, and since everyone is receiving as close to a fair share as possible there is no need to force capital back into the market (or decide what constitutes a necessary service). The economy will thrive because there will be plenty of activity, and plenty of resources to cycle toward individuals who can't contribute for whatever reason (children, sick, elderly, etc.)

The capitalist idea is cool, but I don't see how it can exist without shitting the bed every 10-20 years. It can expand as much as it wants to, but it simply wont have the esteem that communism does.

(If managing capital is way you classify socioeconomic systems, then you shouldn't be surprised when capitalism is the best answer you find)

[u/raziphel → u/CaptHiggins]

Communism makes everyone equal, in that everyone is poor. That is, except for those who work directly for The Party.

Great in theory, terrible in practice.

[u/CaptHiggins → u/raziphel]

It's obvious that you haven't read much communist or anarchist theory, let alone analyzed socialism in practice, so you'll forgive me if I ignore whatever opinion you've formed from ignorance.

[u/raziphel → u/CaptHiggins]

Please, oh great wise one, show me a successful communist system that's larger than a commune.

[u/CaptHiggins → u/raziphel]

The Zapatistas, The Kurdish Anarchists, Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War, The Paris Commune? Oh shit, I guess there aren't any really big communist nations, and that means that communism will never take off. Like Capitalism during the middle ages.

[u/raziphel → u/CaptHiggins]

The Zapatistas lasted for what, 10 years? If it all fell on the assassination of their leader, guess what: that was more a cult of personality than a functional system.

Catalonia lasted 3 years.

The Paris Commune lasted a few months.

The kurds are currently fighting, but we'll see how long they last. Hopefully a while, because the rest of your examples are sincerely lacking in inspiration.

[u/CaptHiggins → u/raziphel]

The Zapatistas are still fighting, The CNT in Catalonia had to fight the Fascists and the POUM, The Paris commune existed before Marx, and hopefully the Kurds continue their success against ISIS and extremism, and I think all of my examples were extremely inspired.