4 ms·
To some exuberant commenters in this thread: Young Americans are NOT accepting Communism. Most wish a slightly more socialist direction, not the full blown sta
by clarkevans 9y ago
To some exuberant commenters in this thread: Young Americans are NOT accepting Communism. Most wish a slightly more socialist direction, not the full blown state ownership of the means of production. For example, many would like to see is single payer medicine; that's not the same thing as the government running the hospitals and employing the doctors. Many would like to see municipal broadband. They'd like to see a bit more consumer protection. Many would like to see more water systems remain under municipal control rather than being sold to a private, for-profit entity. In short, they'd like to see a bit more community works. I've yet seen anyone seriously advocate for government seizure of the means of production.
If you must think in terms of duality, state or privately controlled, there is perhaps a good rubric: If the industry is inherently monopolistic due to it controlling a singular resource (like a central park, or water), then the resource should be owned democratically by its community of users. In contrast, if the field can be competitive, then government should only be regulating the fair competition within that market. Note that even within a singular, monopolistic market there are always subordinate markets that are, in fact, competitive (e.g. parts & labour).
Democratic control need not imply centralized control. Even in the singular resource case, a democratically-controlled user or consumer cooperative specific to that resource is often a better organization structure than making it operated by an arm of a governmental entity. For example, rural electric companies are consumer cooperatives that serve their local area; often times they own & operate only the power lines and transmission (the monopoly part) and leave power generation (the competitive market part) to independent for-profit entities. Regional electric companies are not really part of a centralized government, yet they are democratically controlled by the subscribers who purchase electric service from them.
- AstralStorm 9y agoThe problem is the old one: who watches the watchers? Who ensures the regulators are doing the job instead of perverting the system for gains? Systems can be built based on mutual trust (actual communism) or distrust (rule by jury law), distributed (like marxism or democracy) or centralized (oligarchy, autocracy and monarchy). A hybrid tends to get dominated by one or another extreme or gets unwieldy. Currently centralization is winning despite what is a sham of a de jure republic.
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago>Systems can be built based on mutual trust or distrust, distributed or centralized. A hybrid tends to get dominated by one or another extreme or gets unwieldy. This is exactly what full-blown socialists believe, it's actually the core reason they think we should transition to a socialist state.
- AstralStorm 9y agoBy socialist do we mean statist socialists yes? Towards more of a republic or just buying up votes and voters with promises? Many unanswered questions lie this way.
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y agoI don't know why what I said would require statist. Even the left libertarians would agree. Socialism is just changing who owns the means of production, that's independent of how centralized the government would be.
- namlem 9y agoThat's why we need to reform our political system. In the US our democracy is very weak and subject to attack by special interests. A more robust democratic system like MMP could be trusted with more power. Though IMO, we should go even farther than MMP and incorporate some degree of sortition into government.