Universal access to healthcare, food, water, shelter, electricity, and education without cost.
Prohibit the operation of businesses or investments in basic necessities mentioned in previous point.
Non-essential amenities such as entertainment, fashion, travel, luxury goods etc continue to be available for purchase.
A reasonable tax structure that ensures higher taxes for the rich.

Is that Communism? Is that too much to ask for?

[–] 8ohighdef@sh.itjust.works 29 points 1 year ago

Its more of a social democracy but no it is not too much to ask for. It should be the baseline

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's more like socialism though, where capitalism coexist with worker/government run corporations.

[–] Stoneykins@lemmy.one 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Reading arguments about these concepts while many people completely disagree what their definitions are feels like treading water waiting to exhaust myself and drown.

Maybe the point is the policies and anyone who argues about words is part of the problem.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago

Well the definitions are pretty clear, some people might just be uninformed because mixing the two has been very common in the right's communication for decades.

[–] astral_avocado@programming.dev -2 points 1 year ago

Since China is communist like tankies believe, you also forgot a fascist police state with total control over the internet tot he point where you'll get a police visit if you post a meme critical of the government.

[–] Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de -5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Your first and second point combined basically means that everybody has to live in some government designed and funded flat. If you don't like that, there's nothing to be done. Same with food and everything. Oh you don't like the government mandated 1500kcal protein slurry per day? Sucks to be you then... Of course it doesn't have to be bad, but you are enabling a system where it could be bad and nobody could do anything about it.

[–] voidMainVoid@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah, I don't see why #2 is necessary. Make the government have to compete with the free market. If you're poor, you get a government-funded apartment, but if you're wealthy, you can afford a luxury condo.

There are food banks in my city, and nobody believes that they're a threat and they're going to put supermarkets out of business. You could just have standardized, ubiquitous food banks run by the government.

[–] Sanctus@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

I think they mean all this business with water and housing. Investment properties are a plague all over this country. They inflate the price of housing so that someone can make a living off of someone else's need for shelter.