I’m not one to tell someone not to strive for their endeavors, and not one to advocate for pragmatism, and there is good and bad in every group, but when your ideas are so extreme that they require the rewriting of key mechanisms of society and rewiring of human nature, I will offer constructive scrutiny. My conservative friends might be surprised to realize how my socialist tendencies actually contrast with communism, and how some conservative ideas actually overlap with communism.
Taxes are not inherently an unethical concept. Their elimination is not necessary in implementing moral and humanist principles. In fact they may even be necessary in doing so. It is their current application that is flawed, how taxes are not coming back to society, how they are being used for needless slaughter and genocide and how wealth is being horded at the top of society despite our increased productivity.
Certain communists wish to eliminate taxes in favor of either state owned/controlled assets or a somehow voluntarily selfless workforce. Conservatives, including certain libertarians, want to eliminate or drastically reduce taxes in favor of a more Darwinian society that removes the state from society, except of course for military endeavors or those who manage to claw their way to the top. They both want to eliminate taxes to achieve opposite goals.
I don’t mean to pick on one group of people, but these particular communists (and I’m not saying it as a dirty word, but a technical category) have large ambitions to construct epic green “corridors” for millions to live in, stopping just short of forcing displacement into these corridors (but one way or another getting everyone to live there), and the previous inhabitants of the required land apparently not including any private individuals or families but all farming corporations. The green part is nice and even necessary though, which displays ultimately their hearts being in the right place.
They call for the elimination of all cars of any fuel source or engine type, since the meticulously, newly laid out corridors would be designed so that no one in society requires any more than some bicycle-like hydrogen powered transportation (a car?). That’s quite the utopian existence, isn’t it? I’m not overly averse to the notion of the end result, but you can start to spot a lot of overlooked aspects in application and ultimately flaws in the concept.
This is of course in unison with and reliant upon a full scale revolution that will somehow take place. I never did get an explanation on exactly how this complete change in government and society would occur, but apparently any detractors will see how wonderful it is and willingly hop on board without a fuss. I was criticized for “using the system to change the system” and told I was too unrealistic, the system in this case being not completely overthrowing the government and building a society from scratch. I never heard how my ideas (utilizing taxes, ranked choice voting, open debates, non-controlled media, etc.) were less feasible than theirs.
This concept isn’t absent of any good aspects. There are some nice ideas thrown in, and I don’t think it is pragmatic to say this shouldn’t be our goal. This is different than saying extreme capitalism is bad while Pelosi and the establishment says capitalism is necessary. Criticizing this idea doesn’t make me a centrist. These ideas lie in the upper-left corner of the political compass, and that’s not where I reside.