4 ms·

As someone who thinks that a global socialist/communist system (which we have never had in modern times) would make most people and the planet better off, I agr

As someone who thinks that a global socialist/communist system (which we have never had in modern times) would make most people and the planet better off, I agree with you completely. It is not unconscionable for Apple to charge what it does under a Capitalist system. If you think it is, you might be a socialist and not realize it.

jostylr 3y ago
Do you have any good recommendations for a serious dive into the trade-offs for a socialist/communist system and comes out pro-socialist, one that takes into account the analysis of Austrian economics as well as the historical tragedies of those (Lenin/Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, ...) who have claimed to rule as socialist? In ideal capitalism, the basic bargain is increased wealth for all at the cost of there being losers and extreme winners along with failures of endeavors being an essential ingredient to overall societal success. It is based on choices being made by individuals to maximize what they value given the options at hand. What is the bargain in ideal socialism? Historically, it looks like equality for the non-elites being pushed over wealth creation. Is there a different trade-off being proposed. There are, after all, no solutions, just trade-offs. In the context of this thread, what would the options in the computer market be in an ideal socialist society? Would there be many choices? Who would make those decisions? Who would make the products and why them? How would one determine how to distribute the product? Why would innovation happen, particularly how would one idea triumph over a differing one, particularly over a status quo idea that pushes out entrenched interests? Would dissent be allowed? How would it be addressed? I would also be interested in an honest analysis of environmental stewardship questions of socialist versus capitalist. From what I have read, environmental destruction has been way worse under government management (Soviets were notorious, but also the US military and its private contractors) than private management unless that private management is somehow being directed and/or protected by the government. Is there a reason to believe socialists would be good stewards of the environment? What is the incentive structure of the people in the system to make that happen? Under a true capitalist system, it is not getting sued for destroying other people's properties as well as the ability to profit off of well-managed lands. Also, under anarcho-capitalism, voluntary associations that can be categorized as socialism/communism can easily arise and would be perfectly acceptable, but the reverse is not true. Why would socialist voluntary associations not be sufficient, i.e., why would enforced collectivization be necessary and morally correct? In a certain sense, anarcho-capitalism is what emerges when the right of secession is taken to the individual level while global socialism is explicitly disallowing any secession. Why is uniform collectivization of all humans under a single controlling entity a good thing? Again, I am hoping for a reference accepted by pro-socialists that thoughtfully addresses these questions.

jostylr 3y ago

Do you have any good recommendations for a serious dive into the trade-offs for a socialist/communist system and comes out pro-socialist, one that takes into account the analysis of Austrian economics as well as the historical tragedies of those (Lenin/Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, ...) who have claimed to rule as socialist? In ideal capitalism, the basic bargain is increased wealth for all at the cost of there being losers and extreme winners along with failures of endeavors being an essential ingredient to overall societal success. It is based on choices being made by individuals to maximize what they value given the options at hand. What is the bargain in ideal socialism? Historically, it looks like equality for the non-elites being pushed over wealth creation. Is there a different trade-off being proposed. There are, after all, no solutions, just trade-offs. In the context of this thread, what would the options in the computer market be in an ideal socialist society? Would there be many choices? Who would make those decisions? Who would make the products and why them? How would one determine how to distribute the product? Why would innovation happen, particularly how would one idea triumph over a differing one, particularly over a status quo idea that pushes out entrenched interests? Would dissent be allowed? How would it be addressed? I would also be interested in an honest analysis of environmental stewardship questions of socialist versus capitalist. From what I have read, environmental destruction has been way worse under government management (Soviets were notorious, but also the US military and its private contractors) than private management unless that private management is somehow being directed and/or protected by the government. Is there a reason to believe socialists would be good stewards of the environment? What is the incentive structure of the people in the system to make that happen? Under a true capitalist system, it is not getting sued for destroying other people's properties as well as the ability to profit off of well-managed lands. Also, under anarcho-capitalism, voluntary associations that can be categorized as socialism/communism can easily arise and would be perfectly acceptable, but the reverse is not true. Why would socialist voluntary associations not be sufficient, i.e., why would enforced collectivization be necessary and morally correct? In a certain sense, anarcho-capitalism is what emerges when the right of secession is taken to the individual level while global socialism is explicitly disallowing any secession. Why is uniform collectivization of all humans under a single controlling entity a good thing? Again, I am hoping for a reference accepted by pro-socialists that thoughtfully addresses these questions.