Think about it.
No mindless consumption, no capitalist abundance putting most people on a loop of consuming things they don't need, no taking things for granted that our ancestors had to work harder for, such as food and clean water.
What we consider to be poverty is actually the normal state of humanity for most of our ancestors, and with capitalism we're straying from it and living in a way the human mind is not prepared for and doesn't actually make us happier. Food doesn't make you happy if you know for a fact you'll eat multiple times every day for the foreseeable future.
The economy can either be centralized or decentralized. As in, either bureaucrats manage the entire economy, or each person manages what they own. That's why there's only two options (although most countries have something in between).
With capitalism, capital accumulation by some people is unavoidable too. It can of course be argued that all of that capital they own in the form of factories and businesses is, in practice, all dedicated to serving the public, but to strictly respond to your question, yes they have to accumulate the wealth.
The accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few corporations is mostly not even a result of capitalism, but the opposite: Government favors, handouts, monopolies, making things hard for small businesses, etc. But of course, accumulation of wealth can also happen in a free market, so for the sake of the argument, let's ignore this nuance.
With communism it is also unavoidable, because there's no way for bureaucrats to not take 100% of the nation's income, because if they manage everything and make all the choices, then de facto they own everything. For example, if you own a business but everything you do is regulated and dictated, you basically own it in name only. So if there's communism then the bureaucrats have to basically own everything.
Some people try to argue against this with some sort of "genius" redistribution they come up with, but by definition any of their ideas are just somewhere in between.
This is why either way a class of people have to accumulate wealth and the goycattle have to take it. Except for taxes. What is absolutely not a part of free market policy and not necessary is for poor people to pay more taxes, obviously.
Thoughts
This is just neoliberal austerity
you dont appear to be praising a political system, but rather you appear to be criticising the very advent of wealth itself, preferring poverty (while hypocritically using such luxuries as the internet, powered by radio technologies which encrypt information to be sent and received by signals in phones and computers).
i would suggest you look into buddhism for a theory on the failure for material attachment to bring peace, rather than seeking to impose anything on others.
>>2749169Buddhism led to the rape of Nanking and was justified on those grounds
>>2749173thats like saying "Jesus taught us to love the modern state of israel"
>>2749178Without Christianity there is no Britain and with no Britain there is no Israel, so yes
>>2749150>The economy can either be centralized or decentralized. As in, either bureaucrats manage the entire economy, or each person manages what they own.that's an incredibly naive way to define economic centralization. a far better way to go about it would be to look at the extreme disparity in what people own to manage. most people only own their labor. some people own the land and machines the former group need to use to labor. this latter group owns far more than the former group as a necessary consequence of private ownership and market competition which ironically brings about its dialectical negation in monopoly and publicly traded joint stock corporations. if state action is at all to be blamed for monopolization, then it is only because the state is bought by owners of property.
>>2749218but its factually inaccurate
saying "buddha supported rape" is equally false
evil people justify evil by lying, not by truths
>>2749232Buddha did support rape though, look what he actually said about women
>>2749237ah, yes , the famous sermon where he said "rape chinese women for the glory of the emporer". how could it slip my mind?
>>2749246It’s more like “nothing is anyone’s fault, the universe put that bayonet through that child”
>>2749278but thats the same argument any materialist can use as well - does that make materialism inherently immoral?
>>2749284Yes, which is why I reject materialism and Marxism
>>2749292so what is a moral belief that can never be subverted, then?
>>2749293None, they all can
>>2749297right, so perhaps subversion does not come from within, but from without? this is why as i say, an evil person will subvert a belief system, but the true believer cannot abide by this trickery, and thus a divide appears, which is the same difference between truth and lies.
to put it another way, can you both be evil and honest?
>>2749309You can be evil and honest, but you won’t get far
Bro I hate the "socialism isn't when poor" dengoids but you are just a buddist lmao. Poor and rich wouldn't exist in a classless society.