Capitalism allows the top to exceed, while destroying the bottom.
Communism doesn't allow the top to exceed, so everyone starves.
If a person doesn't go out and gather/hunt their own food, and they starve, that is their fault.
If a person is not allowed to go out and gather and hunt, and they starve, who's fault is it?
Currently, we define it as the starving person's fault under capitalism.
Under communism, it is the administrator's fault, but it is blamed on the old farmers, who didn't share.
We never learned from the destruction of the commons. (both sides, overgrazing, and squeezing people out)
And, we have defined many things as personal property, that are not. A person cannot own the commons, it is owned, if at all, by the entire community.
Things like air, water and land to grow food on, must be shared.
Denying someone a place to sleep safely
Homelessness is one of the evils of capitalism (crony-bankster-capitalism). And it starts with defining land as property. (so messed up is this, that we often interchange the words)
Such is the disparity between rich and poor in a crony-bankster-capitalist system, that the rich can buy up all the land, and poor cannot afford anything. Billy Gatez has purchased a great deal of farmland. Just think about if he stops anyone from growing food on that land. Sure, he bought it all, but does he really own it, in such a way as he can deny millions of people life? (and we will have to face this as Billy Gatez does something so heinous, like salting the earth, that basically destroys the land for purposes of growing food. And, he will see the pitchforks)
Some really difficult questions emerge.
Should we allow people to buy two houses, when some people can't even get one?
(well, this is the case where many boomers have more than one house, and aren't selling their second place. And further, many groups have become landlords, where they will rent someone a place to live, while also denying them the ability to buy a place to live, because they have bought it all)
Should we allow people to create mansions, while people live on the streets?
(The money/labor/materials put into one mansion could make many houses, and even more tiny houses to house all the people)
Denying people land, for reasons of not being born first, ends up with many people being homeless.
Denying a person a place to grow food.
We may not have to make sure everyone gets fed, but when we deny people the ability to get their own food it is a set up for destruction.
"Get a job", is what the working man yells at the bum.
However, where is the place that i can show up, and trade work for money for food?
Even if i lack skills. Even if i am not very good at following directions. Even if i just showed up today. If we say that people must work for a living, then there has to be a minimum living provided for minimum effort.
And if you make the minimum effort mean you need a bachelors degree, and to beat out hundreds of other applicants, then we are just deciding who should die, based on who can get up a ladder with its bottom rungs destroyed.
On the other hand, if we give each person a parcel of land, the wealthy will still grow more food, and the poor less. The poor people do not weed their garden. And weeding your garden increases yield by at least 20%.
What a mess.
The horrifying truth is that we need to keep jobs open for the least among us. A low IQ person can only be a janitor. A high IQ person can be a doctor, or a janitor. And if they choose to be a janitor, they are taking away one of the few jobs the low IQ person can do.
For the higher achievers, it is far easier to just feed/house the low achievers. And, perhaps that is what we should do as a society. Provide tiny homes and cafeteria food would be easy for the high achievers. But, providing meaningful jobs for the low achievers is really hard. In fact, it often takes the entire day of several people to care for, to help live, one low IQ person.
We truly need to create a place for every child we bring into our communities.
The ideas of capitalism is to just throw them out at 18 and let them find their own way.
The ideas of communism is to just shove them into the role we need them to play, without their input.
Both of these are really, really bad. The outcome is destruction. The choice is whether you get quick destruction, or slow destruction.
Here in America, we are suffering from slow destruction. And it will soon turn fast, as many cities impose communism. (NYC mayor elect is leading the way, but Comifornia Governor Nuissance is still in fierce competition for last place)
There are many problems in capitalism (besides allowing bansters to turn it into crony-capitalism) where we turn the commons into private land, and then exclude the community from its use.
We would be aghast if someone where to buy up all the air and then charge us to breath… however, there are people doing just that to water.
The middle class need to wake up and see that these problems cannot be solved with money. However, they also need to realize, that the middle class is being destroyed by the banksters and their money-printing ways.