I see it more of an analogy as opposed to taking it at face value. We need benefits for all beyond luxuries for a few. Which aligns with exactly what you’re saying.
It absolutely is, but there’s still a point in that with quotes like these socialism can be seen as promoting poverty instead of prosperity for all.
We need better slogans.
Do we allow a handful few to hoard wealth, or do we choose to ensure every single person has their needs covered first?
And yes, one core left stance should be that one should not be getting insanely wealthy, wealthier that whole countries, while there’s even a single person who’s in desperate need of basic life necessities.
I see it more of an analogy as opposed to taking it at face value. We need benefits for all beyond luxuries for a few. Which aligns with exactly what you’re saying.
It absolutely is, but there’s still a point in that with quotes like these socialism can be seen as promoting poverty instead of prosperity for all.
We need better slogans.
I’m not saying it was meant literally, I’m saying it’s a bad analogy.
Alright, agree to disagree then.
What happens if I don’t?
Then you agree, obviously.
But what if I don’t agree?
You’ve agreed to disagree, so now that we’re in agreement, you are free to disagree of course.
I too understand it as an analogy.
Do we allow a handful few to hoard wealth, or do we choose to ensure every single person has their needs covered first?
And yes, one core left stance should be that one should not be getting insanely wealthy, wealthier that whole countries, while there’s even a single person who’s in desperate need of basic life necessities.