5 ms·
Do you think that was the lifestyle in Yugoslavia? And their heyday was half a century ago at this point. You're presenting a false dichotomy. Nobody's gonna li
by saubeidl 1y ago
Do you think that was the lifestyle in Yugoslavia? And their heyday was half a century ago at this point. You're presenting a false dichotomy. Nobody's gonna live in a mud hut using a spinning wheel just because workers run companies.
- WalterBright 1y agoWhy did 20 million people over the last 4 years sneak into America? How many Americans left for Yugoslavia?
- saubeidl 1y agoHow many Yugoslavs left for America?
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- carlosjobim 1y agoWere they allowed to leave? Usually the sign of the fairest and most humane systems of government and economy is when people get shot in the back by border guards if they try to escape.
- nradov 1y agoGenerally yes. Unlike Soviet occupied Eastern Europe, most regular people in Yugoslavia were able to obtain passports and travel internationally. There were some people barred from leaving or held as political prisoners.
- saubeidl 1y agoYes. The Yugoslav passport was the strongest in the world at the time - the only one you could freely travel both West and East with.
- selimthegrim 1y agoEver been to Cleveland or Pittsburgh or Chicago or Long Beach?
- WalterBright 1y agoGoogle says: "Between 1950 and 1989, approximately 73,000 people immigrated to the United States from Yugoslavia" I couldn't find any statistics of Americans leaving for Yugoslavia.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- dttze 1y agoAh yes, taking the last 4 years post pandemic, in the midst of massive climate change, and in a near world war and then comparing it to 60+ years ago in the height of the Cold War and US global dominance. You should change your name to Walter Dim.
- trinix912 1y agoThat and the fact he’s taking the statistics of the last 4 years when all countries of the former Yugoslavia were capitalist, ironically.
- Ray20 1y ago>Nobody's gonna live in a mud hut using a spinning wheel just because workers run companies. That exactly what will happen. In the best case, if you lacky enough, you will be live in a mud hut. The rest will envy those who can afford to live in a mud hut. Workers can start running companies at any time, no one restricts them from running their companies. The only reason they don't do this is that this will be worse for workers. So you are being hypocritical. You don't want workers to run companies (they can do that now), you want workers to have no alternative.
- saubeidl 1y ago[flagged]
- nradov 1y agoWhen a "problem" has no solution then it's not actually a problem, just a fact to be accepted. Like gravity. There's nothing wrong with worker owned cooperatives, but for anything that requires significant capital you have to run things the way that capital owners want. And large-scale economic central planning where governments allocate capital has been an abject failure everywhere it has been tried, so don't insult our intelligence by suggesting that we give it another shot.
- saubeidl 1y agoWhat you're proposing, my friend, is called ideological blindness.
- nradov 1y agoWhat are you proposing? I mean in terms of stuff that's actually feasible in the real world of today, not empty fantasies.
- saubeidl 1y agoI believe that what is feasible in the real world changes over time, it is a matter of building momentum and challenging the status quo. Nobody would've thought the rise of MAGA in the US was gonna be feasible two decades ago. Maintaining ideological blinders for what is feasible is how entrenched interests prevent systemic change.