DreamlandLividity @ DreamlandLividity @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

589

Joined

2 yr. ago

Did I say it always worked? IMO USA is definitely too capitalistic right now. There are things like healthcare, utilities, emergency services, infrastructure and many more that are better of government run (or as mentioned above, at least have government compete), either because it is impractical to have real competition in these areas or because they are so important it is better for them to be inefficient than cutting corners.

But making the leap from this to communism is ridiculous IMO. Gradual improvements to the system that we know works because we live in it is the way to go.

Must suck where you live. Especially if a resume gap = can't work

Then don't complain about me assuming you are either too dumb or too uneducated to understand why empty words like those and your wishful thinking can't result in a functional governing/economic system.

Am I saying that we should give corporations a free run of the country? No, we should legislate them until they look like a models of virtue comparatively to now.

But the smart way to do it is to align their greed with our interests. As an example, creating a carbon tax is much better then government trying to implements specific green initiatives. The corporate greed will find efficient and innovative way to reduce emissions compared to the heavy handed and inefficient regulations the governments do.

If that is not possible, then just legislate them normally. Or even make a government run/funded competitors. In Slovak republic, insurance companies are private except one that is government run and serves as a lowest bar that others have to compete with.

Let corporations do what they do best, which is optimizing the economy and let governments regulate what needs to be regulated.

First of all, thank you for a sensible and pleasant reply. It really is a breath of fresh air in here :)

I think the small markets only go so far. Many things in a modern economy don't work well on a small scale. This is actually where many of the worst examples of capitalism come from too. With high barriers to entry into areas like mobile phones, medicine, social networks, utilities etc. some companies become near monopolies. But as you say, various solutions could be tried.

Another issue I can see is the difficulty of ensuring power is not too concentrated in a small group of people. But again, various things could be tried and capitalism has these issues to a lesser extent as well.

That is, if we have more than one try... The thing that concerns me most is how to try them out without driving the economy off a cliff and without violence. If we could try these systems on a smaller scale next to capitalism, than I am all for it, lets experiment. But most people here talk about a revolution or confiscating all wealth above a threshold (dismantling the capitalist system). If this is really the only way to try communism, then I think it is much more sensible to work on gradually improving capitalism instead. There are capitalist countries that are very nice to live in (like the Nordics, Switzerland, Netherlands, ...). So we know this is possible and even more or less how to get there.

The utility of a thing makes it a use value.[4] But this utility is not a thing of air. Being limited by the physical properties of the commodity, it has no existence apart from that commodity. A commodity, such as iron, corn, or a diamond, is therefore, so far as it is a material thing, a use value, something useful. This property of a commodity is independent of the amount of labour required to appropriate its useful qualities.

I could do a million things more productive with my time than reading whole paragraphs of tautologies. This is literally beyond obvious. Either point me to some concrete plans on how a communist economy would work or don't, but I am not reading a book worth of this.

Ok, can you please point me to a chapter where the actual economic mechanism proposed are described? Can't quickly find it there.

Where the hell do you live that starving to death due to a resume gap is a concern?

PS: I just realized how ironic it is to call capitalists out for starving people who disagree with them.

I trust the greed of rich people. If people are willing to pay for something, at least some will invest in it to profit off of it.

Also, unlike with a committee, I don't need a majority of them to do so. That's the advantage of the capitalistic solution, you don't really need much trust.

You're late, someone already commented this 😆

https://lemmy.world/comment/9668312

So what is the difference? How does it work under communism? Some planning committee? So when someone wants to make an independent news broadcast, episode of South Park, or Fuck the government T-Shirt, they need to ask the government committee?

What about more serious things like abortion pills, anti-conception, hormone therapy for transgender people, a religious symbol? You want to entrust almost every aspect of your life (everything you can get in exchange for your work) to a committee?

No, I am saying that getting funding for new businesses is a necessary part of any economic system. It is clear to me how that works under capitalism. I have never seen a sane explanation on how that would work in democratic communism.

🤣

Maybe I should have specified, I don't mean it is the same as full communism. But is a way to get large part of the advantages and build support (by showing others it works and its advantages).

Am I blind and don't see a typo?

Or are you disputing that resorting to violence or relying on the govt. for basic entrepreneurship is bad?

Depends what you mean maintain itself. From real outside threats, I don't see an issue. If you mean from people fairly competing or peacefully changing it from the inside, I feel the same way as any other unjustified violence.

Ok, technically you are right although since Fidelity is publicly traded, it is a somewhat special case IMO. That is what I meant by it not being fully private. If it was owned ultimately by an individual, there would be no reason for such disclosure.

More importantly, this does not change my argument about it being a self reported value.