4 ms·

Yes, because communism has always worked out so well in the past.

by dadjoker 2mo ago

8note 2mo ago
it seems to be working quite well in the present, if you look at china
- gruez 2mo ago
  ...after they abandoned communism ("let some people and some regions get rich first") and liberalized their economy?
  - palmotea 2mo ago
    They abandoned central planning, not state control of the economy. Unfortunately, their priority is not worker welfare, but more like national greatness. And they're performing way better than "capitalist" economies, which all look downright dysfunctional in pretty serious ways (e.g. selling off strategic manufacturing capacity to make a quick buck).
palmotea 2mo ago
> Yes, because communism has always worked out so well in the past. Yeah, won't anyone think of the poor oligarchs, openly fantasizing about creating a permanent underclass? And the only thing that didn't work out well in the past was central planning by state-owned businesses with 20th century technology. The structure I proposed is nothing like that.
toivo 2mo ago
Late-stage capitalism has always worked out so well in the future.
josefritzishere 2mo ago
Capitalism is failing us right now. Why are you looking in the past?
- stronglikedan 2mo ago
  I would look to the past, but only as far back as free market capitalism, to replace the crony capitalism that we have right now in the US. Both have their issues, but nothing compared to communism. There's still time to correct course without that nonsense being involved.
  - palmotea 2mo ago
    > I would look to the past, but only as far back as free market capitalism, to replace the crony capitalism that we have right now in the US. Free market capitalism won't save us from a future were automation reaches a point that it creates a large, unemployable underclass. And that's the future the tech and business elite have been promising us (at least until they belatedly realized that was the quiet part they shouldn't be saying out loud). I'm going to take their word on those promises, when considering regulation to constrain them. > Both have their issues, but nothing compared to communism. There's still time to correct course without that nonsense being involved. I would like a communism that is basically capitalism, but with the capital more-or-less evenly distributed among the workers. Keep a lot of the economic system, but replace it with other things: mutuals, worker-owned businesses, maybe 50-50 JVs between labor and investors, some "all of the above" combination, etc.
    - miyoji 2mo ago
      [dead]
  - well_ackshually 2mo ago
    Ah yes, the most capitalistic country on the planet, where billionaires quite literally buy out public officials isn't capitalistic enough, and isn't "real capitalism". Watch out, you're almost sounding like the "not real communism" boys. >Both have their issues, but nothing compared to communism. Some would say leaving a few million people die of thirst and hunger every year because it's "not profitable to fix it", or having a population of dozens of millions in your own country suffering of mental health problems, inability to get basic healthcare or even living conditions for the past 50 years might be a sign that your favorite system is fundamentally immoral, but hey.

Yes, because communism has always worked out so well in the past.

8note 2mo ago

it seems to be working quite well in the present, if you look at china

gruez 2mo ago
...after they abandoned communism ("let some people and some regions get rich first") and liberalized their economy?
- palmotea 2mo ago
  They abandoned central planning, not state control of the economy. Unfortunately, their priority is not worker welfare, but more like national greatness. And they're performing way better than "capitalist" economies, which all look downright dysfunctional in pretty serious ways (e.g. selling off strategic manufacturing capacity to make a quick buck).

palmotea 2mo ago

> Yes, because communism has always worked out so well in the past. Yeah, won't anyone think of the poor oligarchs, openly fantasizing about creating a permanent underclass? And the only thing that didn't work out well in the past was central planning by state-owned businesses with 20th century technology. The structure I proposed is nothing like that.

toivo 2mo ago

Late-stage capitalism has always worked out so well in the future.

josefritzishere 2mo ago

Capitalism is failing us right now. Why are you looking in the past?

stronglikedan 2mo ago
I would look to the past, but only as far back as free market capitalism, to replace the crony capitalism that we have right now in the US. Both have their issues, but nothing compared to communism. There's still time to correct course without that nonsense being involved.
- palmotea 2mo ago
  > I would look to the past, but only as far back as free market capitalism, to replace the crony capitalism that we have right now in the US. Free market capitalism won't save us from a future were automation reaches a point that it creates a large, unemployable underclass. And that's the future the tech and business elite have been promising us (at least until they belatedly realized that was the quiet part they shouldn't be saying out loud). I'm going to take their word on those promises, when considering regulation to constrain them. > Both have their issues, but nothing compared to communism. There's still time to correct course without that nonsense being involved. I would like a communism that is basically capitalism, but with the capital more-or-less evenly distributed among the workers. Keep a lot of the economic system, but replace it with other things: mutuals, worker-owned businesses, maybe 50-50 JVs between labor and investors, some "all of the above" combination, etc.
  - miyoji 2mo ago
    [dead]
- well_ackshually 2mo ago
  Ah yes, the most capitalistic country on the planet, where billionaires quite literally buy out public officials isn't capitalistic enough, and isn't "real capitalism". Watch out, you're almost sounding like the "not real communism" boys. >Both have their issues, but nothing compared to communism. Some would say leaving a few million people die of thirst and hunger every year because it's "not profitable to fix it", or having a population of dozens of millions in your own country suffering of mental health problems, inability to get basic healthcare or even living conditions for the past 50 years might be a sign that your favorite system is fundamentally immoral, but hey.