3 ms·

It's not communist. It's Democratic Socialism. There's nuance there. The kind of nuance that would result in the answer to your question. > Who decides who get

It's not communist. It's Democratic Socialism. There's nuance there. The kind of nuance that would result in the answer to your question. > Who decides who gets what and how much? The collective would own the corporation, not the small cabal of shareholders and the small group of executives are beholden to their whims. > At least in a capitalist system, the power is supposed to be held by the people who invest their capital This is a very small portion of the populace. Therefor the people who are allowed to make decisions are those with capital, those who have more capital are allowed to make more decisions. > A bureaucratic system of allocation doesn’t incentivize efficiency. Any democratic system of significant size will be inefficient by design, that's a good thing. Different agents in a democratic system have different terminal goals, it takes time to reach consensus. I leave you with a quote from Karl Marx “Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.” JK, that was Abraham Lincoln https://abrahamlincoln.org/features/speeches-writings/abraham-lincoln-quotes/#:~:text=%E2%80%9CLabor%20is%20prior%20to%2C%20and,deserves%20much%20the%20higher%20consideration.%E2%80%9D https://abrahamlincoln.org/features/speeches-writings/abraha...

simple-thoughts 4y ago
I’m using the term “communist” to mean the means of production are controlled by laborers as opposed to “capitalist” system where the means of production are controlled by private owners of capital. Using this definition, Democratic Socialist is certainly communist - not to be confused with lowercase democratic socialist mixed economies which are the prevalent form of production today. These mixed economies use both capitalist and communist ownership processes. Who speaks for the collective? If you’ve ever been to church, it’s certainly a collective but certain members have more power to speak than others. It’s the same at protests- having attended them, it’s important not to say anything that could attract the attention of the mob or you may lose more than a few hairs. Collective decision making is a myth that hides the actual source of power vested in specific individuals within that collective. I agree that to create a communist system, inefficiency is not only an output but also a necessary design feature, since efficiencies tend towards positive feedback loops of technocapital. But, whether that’s “good” depends on believing in some kind of transcendence beyond matter. What’s “good” in a material sense is a process which is able to continue to exist within matter while a “bad” process is one that self destructs. Since communism is inherently less efficient, it must be universal or non communist feedback loops of technocapital will accelerate and devour the sheep.
- weatherlight 4y ago
  Thanks for sharing your perspective. I appreciate the opportunity to engage in a thoughtful conversation about the nuances of economic systems, even though the Mods here at hacker new flagged the article, it shows them we can have civil discourse around this subject. It's important to clarify that Democratic Socialism doesn't advocate for complete state control or collective ownership of the means of production. It seeks to strike a balance between capitalism and socialism, with a mixed economy that includes both private and public ownership. > Who speaks for the collective? Democratic Socialism emphasizes a robust democratic process, so ideally, decision-making power is distributed among the people. While it's true that some individuals may hold more influence than others in any group, this is not unique to Democratic Socialism. The key is to ensure that systems are in place to prevent the undue concentration of power and to promote transparency and accountability. > Collective decision making is a myth that hides the actual source of power vested in specific individuals within that collective. In any democratic system, there will always be challenges to achieving true collective decision-making. However, the goal of Democratic Socialism is to maximize the involvement of ordinary people in the political and economic decision-making process, making it more inclusive and equitable. > Since communism is inherently less efficient, it must be universal or non communist feedback loops of technocapital will accelerate and devour the sheep. As I mentioned earlier, Democratic Socialism is not communism; it is a mixed economy that seeks to harness the best aspects of capitalism and socialism. It does not require a complete rejection of capitalism or the pursuit of a purely communist system. Democratic Socialism focuses on reducing income inequality, providing essential social services, and protecting workers' rights while maintaining a market-based economy. Regarding the concern about efficiency, it's important to recognize that efficiency is not the only measure of a successful system. Democratic Socialism aims to create a more equitable society, and sometimes that means sacrificing a degree of efficiency in the pursuit of greater equality and social justice. It's about striking a balance between efficiency and the well-being of all members of society. > What’s “good” in a material sense is a process which is able to continue to exist within matter while a “bad” process is one that self destructs. While it's important to consider the material aspects of an economic system, it's also crucial to factor in the well-being of the people within that system. Democratic Socialism aims to create a society where resources and opportunities are more fairly distributed, and where everyone has a chance to thrive. This might involve some trade-offs in terms of pure material efficiency, but the ultimate goal is to build a more just and humane society. In summary, Democratic Socialism is not communism, and it does not advocate for the complete control of the means of production by laborers. Instead, it seeks a balanced approach that combines the best aspects of mArket and planned economies to create a more equitable, democratic, and inclusive society.

simple-thoughts 4y ago

I’m using the term “communist” to mean the means of production are controlled by laborers as opposed to “capitalist” system where the means of production are controlled by private owners of capital. Using this definition, Democratic Socialist is certainly communist - not to be confused with lowercase democratic socialist mixed economies which are the prevalent form of production today. These mixed economies use both capitalist and communist ownership processes. Who speaks for the collective? If you’ve ever been to church, it’s certainly a collective but certain members have more power to speak than others. It’s the same at protests- having attended them, it’s important not to say anything that could attract the attention of the mob or you may lose more than a few hairs. Collective decision making is a myth that hides the actual source of power vested in specific individuals within that collective. I agree that to create a communist system, inefficiency is not only an output but also a necessary design feature, since efficiencies tend towards positive feedback loops of technocapital. But, whether that’s “good” depends on believing in some kind of transcendence beyond matter. What’s “good” in a material sense is a process which is able to continue to exist within matter while a “bad” process is one that self destructs. Since communism is inherently less efficient, it must be universal or non communist feedback loops of technocapital will accelerate and devour the sheep.

weatherlight 4y ago
Thanks for sharing your perspective. I appreciate the opportunity to engage in a thoughtful conversation about the nuances of economic systems, even though the Mods here at hacker new flagged the article, it shows them we can have civil discourse around this subject. It's important to clarify that Democratic Socialism doesn't advocate for complete state control or collective ownership of the means of production. It seeks to strike a balance between capitalism and socialism, with a mixed economy that includes both private and public ownership. > Who speaks for the collective? Democratic Socialism emphasizes a robust democratic process, so ideally, decision-making power is distributed among the people. While it's true that some individuals may hold more influence than others in any group, this is not unique to Democratic Socialism. The key is to ensure that systems are in place to prevent the undue concentration of power and to promote transparency and accountability. > Collective decision making is a myth that hides the actual source of power vested in specific individuals within that collective. In any democratic system, there will always be challenges to achieving true collective decision-making. However, the goal of Democratic Socialism is to maximize the involvement of ordinary people in the political and economic decision-making process, making it more inclusive and equitable. > Since communism is inherently less efficient, it must be universal or non communist feedback loops of technocapital will accelerate and devour the sheep. As I mentioned earlier, Democratic Socialism is not communism; it is a mixed economy that seeks to harness the best aspects of capitalism and socialism. It does not require a complete rejection of capitalism or the pursuit of a purely communist system. Democratic Socialism focuses on reducing income inequality, providing essential social services, and protecting workers' rights while maintaining a market-based economy. Regarding the concern about efficiency, it's important to recognize that efficiency is not the only measure of a successful system. Democratic Socialism aims to create a more equitable society, and sometimes that means sacrificing a degree of efficiency in the pursuit of greater equality and social justice. It's about striking a balance between efficiency and the well-being of all members of society. > What’s “good” in a material sense is a process which is able to continue to exist within matter while a “bad” process is one that self destructs. While it's important to consider the material aspects of an economic system, it's also crucial to factor in the well-being of the people within that system. Democratic Socialism aims to create a society where resources and opportunities are more fairly distributed, and where everyone has a chance to thrive. This might involve some trade-offs in terms of pure material efficiency, but the ultimate goal is to build a more just and humane society. In summary, Democratic Socialism is not communism, and it does not advocate for the complete control of the means of production by laborers. Instead, it seeks a balanced approach that combines the best aspects of mArket and planned economies to create a more equitable, democratic, and inclusive society.