How is him amassing wealth for himself not useful to him?.. He probably thinks it’s very useful to himself.
So the question of what’s really being said, or rather asked for, needs better articulation.
This is actually about setting maximum wealth limits, and then having a communal purpose for the “accursed share” as that one philosopher put it, in his economics.
The point is, a failure of articulation is a failure to communicate. But really is this something that can even be asked for, or is revolutionary action required?
We at least (even before revolution) need to not just know what’s useless in a negative sense (eg. Not useful) but we also and more importantly need to know what’s useful?
Then you hit morality and ethics. Which end up being the guardrails of any society.
Guardrails are coming off. Hollywood tells people its fine to have no morals, and the US president is an awful human being that shouldnt be in charge of a tent.
How is him amassing wealth for himself not useful to him?.. He probably thinks it’s very useful to himself.
So the question of what’s really being said, or rather asked for, needs better articulation.
This is actually about setting maximum wealth limits, and then having a communal purpose for the “accursed share” as that one philosopher put it, in his economics.
The point is, a failure of articulation is a failure to communicate. But really is this something that can even be asked for, or is revolutionary action required?
We at least (even before revolution) need to not just know what’s useless in a negative sense (eg. Not useful) but we also and more importantly need to know what’s useful?
Then you hit morality and ethics. Which end up being the guardrails of any society.
Guardrails are coming off. Hollywood tells people its fine to have no morals, and the US president is an awful human being that shouldnt be in charge of a tent.