4 ms·

There seems to be a trend of 'let's socialize this company: it's a public utility!' that is getting stronger. The problem is that people who say this haven't li

by rmk 4y ago

There seems to be a trend of 'let's socialize this company: it's a public utility!' that is getting stronger. The problem is that people who say this haven't lived in a socialist country and bore the brunt of the ills of 'socialization'. Almost everywhere that governments nationalized corporations, they have turned into cesspools of corruption, inefficiency, and almost no accountability towards (paying) customers or society. I am willing to bet you wouldn't see Russians, Indians, Cuban expats, Venezuelans and others (who lived through the vicissitudes of socialist centrally planned economies) arguing for this.

beepbooptheory 4y ago
Sure, but which side here really has the burden of proof that they are best option? It really seems to come down to that. Is the incumbent system really spared from the same or parallel criticisms (corruption, inefficiency, accountability) precisely because its incumbent? "We don't want that because it has been shown to be bad" has less of a ring to it these days, when all the same problems are replicated in the existing, private, commodified system. People are not saying "let's do twitter like the USSR would have done it." People are rightly saying: "let's try something different." This place alone, and sometimes despite the crowd in the comments, has taught me more about the ills of ad-based private social networking than anywhere else. It just doesn't seem rational to me to label any drastic changes as filthy communism and just.. Move on
- shakezula 4y ago
  > It just doesn't seem rational to me to label any drastic changes as filthy communism and just.. Move on Because they don't want to move anywhere or change anything; they will say no to everything because the current system benefits them.
- rmk 4y ago
  It's not 'filthy communism', and people who suggest nationalizing industries ought to be better informed: they are the ones who are suggesting the dramatic shift from the status quo. I am suggesting that the nationalization suggestion comes from a place of ignorance of the (grave) pitfalls of doing so. Suggesting that industries be nationalized is not just "let's try something different"; it's something that's much more serious and has larger implications that should be weighed carefully, versus a corporation that's only answerable to its shareholders changing how it runs its product.
  - beepbooptheory 4y ago
    As long as we are weighing things carefully, and weighing the right things, I'm on board.
kergonath 4y ago
You’re using a couple of totalitarian states as an example, ignoring a whole bunch of nationalised companies in perfectly reasonable countries (like in western Europe), that work quite well. Britain is not turning into a communist hellhole because they nationalise some rail operators that failed to give a decent service. To get a somewhat relevant example, I really haven’t seen a decent railway infrastructure manager that wasn’t nationalised. Private interests are too eager to cut corners.
- keneda7 4y ago
  Not the person you originally responded to but you are literally doing the exact same thing you accuse the original poster of. You are using one example in western Europe while ignoring a whole bunch of countries throughout history that support the original posters point. Seems to me when non socialist countries (western europe) nationalize companies it generally goes better than when socialist countries do. So both you and the original poster are somewhat correct but you both are trying to manipulate the data to only support the cause you want.
  - kergonath 4y ago
    > So both you and the original poster are somewhat correct but you both are trying to manipulate the data to only support the cause you want. How so? Their point was that nationalisation was intrinsically totalitarian and bad. My point is that there are several counter-examples that show that it does not follow. I never said it was a panacea.
  - rat9988 4y ago
    > So both you and the original poster are somewhat correct but you both are trying to manipulate the data to only support the cause you want. You missed the point of the guy you are replying to.
- pclmulqdq 4y ago
  Most of the countries you are referring to have a higher economic freedom index than the US and even tighter shareholder control of corporations. They have nationalized industries that are mature and run at a loss, like railroads and postal services. If you put Twitter in the category of "mature industries that should run at a loss" then you might have an argument.

by rmk 4y ago

beepbooptheory 4y ago

Sure, but which side here really has the burden of proof that they are best option? It really seems to come down to that. Is the incumbent system really spared from the same or parallel criticisms (corruption, inefficiency, accountability) precisely because its incumbent? "We don't want that because it has been shown to be bad" has less of a ring to it these days, when all the same problems are replicated in the existing, private, commodified system. People are not saying "let's do twitter like the USSR would have done it." People are rightly saying: "let's try something different." This place alone, and sometimes despite the crowd in the comments, has taught me more about the ills of ad-based private social networking than anywhere else. It just doesn't seem rational to me to label any drastic changes as filthy communism and just.. Move on

shakezula 4y ago
> It just doesn't seem rational to me to label any drastic changes as filthy communism and just.. Move on Because they don't want to move anywhere or change anything; they will say no to everything because the current system benefits them.
rmk 4y ago
It's not 'filthy communism', and people who suggest nationalizing industries ought to be better informed: they are the ones who are suggesting the dramatic shift from the status quo. I am suggesting that the nationalization suggestion comes from a place of ignorance of the (grave) pitfalls of doing so. Suggesting that industries be nationalized is not just "let's try something different"; it's something that's much more serious and has larger implications that should be weighed carefully, versus a corporation that's only answerable to its shareholders changing how it runs its product.
- beepbooptheory 4y ago
  As long as we are weighing things carefully, and weighing the right things, I'm on board.

kergonath 4y ago

You’re using a couple of totalitarian states as an example, ignoring a whole bunch of nationalised companies in perfectly reasonable countries (like in western Europe), that work quite well. Britain is not turning into a communist hellhole because they nationalise some rail operators that failed to give a decent service. To get a somewhat relevant example, I really haven’t seen a decent railway infrastructure manager that wasn’t nationalised. Private interests are too eager to cut corners.

keneda7 4y ago
Not the person you originally responded to but you are literally doing the exact same thing you accuse the original poster of. You are using one example in western Europe while ignoring a whole bunch of countries throughout history that support the original posters point. Seems to me when non socialist countries (western europe) nationalize companies it generally goes better than when socialist countries do. So both you and the original poster are somewhat correct but you both are trying to manipulate the data to only support the cause you want.
- kergonath 4y ago
  > So both you and the original poster are somewhat correct but you both are trying to manipulate the data to only support the cause you want. How so? Their point was that nationalisation was intrinsically totalitarian and bad. My point is that there are several counter-examples that show that it does not follow. I never said it was a panacea.
- rat9988 4y ago
  > So both you and the original poster are somewhat correct but you both are trying to manipulate the data to only support the cause you want. You missed the point of the guy you are replying to.
pclmulqdq 4y ago
Most of the countries you are referring to have a higher economic freedom index than the US and even tighter shareholder control of corporations. They have nationalized industries that are mature and run at a loss, like railroads and postal services. If you put Twitter in the category of "mature industries that should run at a loss" then you might have an argument.