I did not change the subject. I just clarified my position.
No, it's intellectual sloth, and possibly fraud; I think you know you can't properly defend your thesis.
Nobody can address any detail of your proposition because you refuse to offer any of use.
I think we would be better off, for instance, banishing poverty:
The majority of people spoil their lives by an unhealthy and exaggerated altruism―are forced, indeed, so to spoil them. They find themselves surrounded by hideous poverty, by hideous ugliness, by hideous starvation. It is inevitable that they should be strongly moved by all this. The emotions of man are stirred more quickly than man's intelligence; and, as I pointed out some time ago in an article on the function of criticism, it is much more easy to have sympathy with suffering than it is to have sympathy with thought. Accordingly, with admirable, though misdirected intentions, they very seriously and very sentimentally set themselves to the task of remedying the evils that they see. But their remedies do not cure the disease: they merely prolong it. Indeed, their remedies are part of the disease.
They try to solve the problem of poverty, for instance, by keeping the poor alive; or, in the case of a very advanced school, by amusing the poor.
But this is not a solution: it is an aggravation of the difficulty. The proper aim is to try and reconstruct society on such a basis that poverty will be impossible. And the altruistic virtues have really prevented the carrying out of this aim. Just as the worst slave-owners were those who were kind to their slaves, and so prevented the horror of the system being realised by those who suffered from it, and understood by those who contemplated it, so, in the present state of things in England, the people who do most harm are the people who try to do most good; and at last we have had the spectacle of men who have really studied the problem and know the life―educated men who live in the East End―coming forward and imploring the community to restrain its altruistic impulses of charity, benevolence, and the like. They do so on the ground that such charity degrades and demoralises. They are perfectly right. Charity creates a multitude of sins.
Oscar Wilde↱ is correct:
"The proper aim is to try and reconstruct society on such a basis that poverty will be impossible."
As the
Manifesto↱ reminds,
"The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles."
And as
I asked↑:
Do you have anything other than your own temporal, earthly judgment and heart full of cruelty?
This time pay attention to the terms, "temporal", "earthly", and "judgment".
But thank you for clarifying your position that you need not answer for your uneducated, unethical, insupportable thesis.
____________________
Notes:
Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels. The Manifesto of the Communist Party. 1848. Marxists.org. 6 November 2016. http://bit.ly/2f7vcN6
Wilde, Oscar. "The Soul of Man Under Socialism". Fortnightly Review. February, 1891. Marxists.org. 6 November 2016. http://bit.ly/1JdDOaw
