| ▲ | psunavy03 10 hours ago |
| Communism as such has never existed and will never exist because it ignores human nature. Private property rights are a fundamental tenet of human psychology. But hey, in defiance of 100+ years of failed attempts, if you want to see Politburos putting people in gulags again for being counterrevolutionaries . . . sure, give it another go. Capitalism is the worst economic system that has ever been tried . . . except for all the others. |
|
| ▲ | Wilder7977 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Anthropologically speaking these statements about human fundamentals (or "human nature") end up falling flat.
There have been plenty of societies organized in ways such that private property was irrelevant when existing at all. I suggest "Debt" from David Graeber for a great dissertation of this topic (which is not the core topic, but definitely touched). All of this without considering that private property of means of production is different from private property in general. |
|
| ▲ | nine_k 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| True communism has of course existed and likely still exists, but it's limited to small self-selected communities, like monastic retreats. Communism indeed is highly unlikely to works as a political state system, due to human nature. |
|
| ▲ | jodrellblank 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Safety-nets for big companies so they can't fail, shared ownership for rich shareholders. Dog-eat-dog market forces, rugged individualism and bootstraps for the poor. Don't you think it's weird that the things communist Americans want, are the things Wealthy Capitalist Americans get, while telling the poor "those things don't work"? Central Planning sounds like a stupid idea, but why are all the big companies planned from a central HQ if everyone agrees that local planning is better? > "in defiance of 100+ years of failed attempts" Just curious, there wasn't any interference from outside during these 'failures' was there? Any trade embargoes? Any military intervention? Any assassinations? Any deliberate destabilizing? Any puppet governments? > "if you want to see Politburos putting people in gulags again for being counterrevolutionaries" There's 1.3 - 1.9 million people in American prisons now. 4.9 million who have been in prison. 19 million with felony convictions. Prisons are for-profit, and prisoners are used for forced labour, either paid nothing or paid less than minimum wage. The US ICE is disappearing people off the streets. The US president is targeting people who criticize him accusing them of treason (punishable by death)[1], recently writing """Chuck Schumer said trip was ‘a total dud’, even though he knows it was a spectacular success. Words like that are almost treasonous!""". Why is "Communism" the cause of gulags but "Capitalism" isn't the cause of mass incarceration, forced labour, and the government covering up how many people die while imprisoned? Why does this American "communism can't work, has never worked, and reminder Communism == mass graves" style comment always feel like a loud pledge of allegiance trying to make it clear to the powers that be that you aren't criticizing them, begging them not to disappear you? Are you not even allowed to entertain a different idea? To consider that even if any given Communism actually can't work and is crappy to live under, that what you're saying is more like a religious recital than something sensible? [1] https://time.com/7290536/miles-taylor-president-trump-treaso... |
|
| ▲ | pessimizer 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Private property rights are a fundamental tenet of human psychology. This is a weird religious belief. Property rights are an entirely unnatural construction. Under normal circumstances, you own exactly what you can defend, no more, no less. Property rights are a communal imposition to protect the weak from the strong, and are no more natural than any other socialist endeavor. |
|
| ▲ | cogman10 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| For the record, I'm not a communist. I'd probably say my values are pretty close to socialist-capitalist. And that is a form of government that many nations have adopted and are successfully running. What's been failing is neoliberalism. Every nation that's been moving in that direction has serious problems as their social safety nets have started to collapse. |
| |
| ▲ | bpt3 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | > socialist-capitalist What is this? Are the existing examples you mentioned considered examples of democratic socialism, or are you referring to something else? | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | No OP. But if it’s similar to what I believe in, it’s free-market capitalism for business (with provisions for market failure, e.g. antitrust and utility regulation), redistribution of wealth for individuals, strong individual investor and consumer rights, and the state providing the bare basics through the market (housing voucher, food voucher, public education or an education voucher, electricity voucher, water voucher, internet voucher, and public healthcare). | | |
| ▲ | bpt3 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | It doesn't sound all that similar on the surface to OP's response based on my initial read of both. It seems like you're proposing a regulated free market in parallel with a highly regulated UBI? | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | > a regulated free market in parallel with a highly regulated UBI? No UBI. Just basics for survival guaranteed. You should not starve if you can't find work. That doesn't mean we can support a non-working population at leisure. (Which, in our current model, occurs at both ends of the income spectrum.) | | |
| ▲ | bpt3 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | > No UBI. Just basics for survival guaranteed. That's why I called it a "highly regulated UBI", which might not have been clear. You're proposing that all citizens receive the basics for survival in kind instead of the cash equivalent (which is how a UBI would work). I think I prefer this model over what the OP ended up suggesting, but I'm not sure how feasible it would be in practice in the US. > That doesn't mean we can support a non-working population at leisure. Aren't the people who choose to live at a basic survival level living a life at leisure in your system? | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Aren't the people who choose to live at a basic survival level living a life at leisure in your system? I suppose so, given they’re subsisting. It should not luxurious, however, and would probably carry with it a modicum of indignity. (Which is fine as long as they aren’t discriminated against.) |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | cogman10 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Basically this [1] And for who's done it, basically every capitalist nation at this point. Simply put it's recognizing that capitalism has failings but so does communism. It doesn't seek full state control of everything, just over industries where it's needed. It tries to strike a balance between public and private ownership. Everything from Vietnam to the US have aspects of market socialism. I think that there are more industries where the US should take ownership, particularly industries that lend themselves to natural monopolies or oligopolies. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialism | | |
| ▲ | bpt3 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | Thanks for the reply. I agree that regulating capitalism is necessary, but I also think the "where it's needed" portion of your thesis is a real sticking point. I would be interested to know what industries you have in mind where the US should take ownership, and in what form. | | |
| ▲ | cogman10 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | It'll obviously be industry dependent. A few that I'd see the need. - Railroads - The lines themselves and the operation should be owned by the federal government. Private rail companies should buy access which pays for line expansion and maintenance. The US needs regulations on things like train length and line speeds (none of these super massive trains blocking roadways because they don't fit inside a rail yard). - Medicine - Medicare for all, but honestly I think nationalizing major hospitals and pharmaceuticals would probably be warranted. It's in the national interest to fund a wide breadth of research and medicine production even if that medicine doesn't ultimately turn a profit. But even if we just did insurance, the US is already covering the most expensive pool of individuals with Medicare (old people) expanding it to all citizens wouldn't be that expensive. Reform to medicare would help (particularly removing Part C, that's just a slush fund for insurance companies, but then also expanding and simplifying the other parts). Utilities ownership - Doesn't need to be nationalized, but having municipal or state ran utilities would, IMO, be preferable. The state utilities boards suck and putting in checks for utility companies. They aren't elected and are easy to corrupt. For example, my water utility was recently purchased by a company. In order to cover the loan they took out to purchase the previous water company, they raised rates (fat chance those go down). For telecommunications, I think a British telecom style system would work well. The government owns the lines while various telecommunication companies compete for service. That'd make it easier for more than just 2 companies providing internet service to a given location. Cellular networks practically already work like this, the big 3 own everything and sub-carriers just lease access. It'd be better if the government nationally owned cell service deployment. Especially in terms of spectrum usage. - Food production - I don't really think government ownership is needed here, I think anti-trust and breakups are needed. These markets have consolidated to a huge extent which is really bad for everyone. Having just ~5 different national grocers is a bad thing. Having just a few mills (like general mills) is a bad thing. - Chip fabrication - This should be owned by the government much like TSMC. And like TSMC, the likes of nvidia/intel/amd can buy a fab to do their runs. Fabs are just too crazy expensive and losing the competitive edge here is a security problem. Basically, my view centers mostly around when an industry gets too consolidated. Especially when I think it's something that has critical importance to the general public. I could be open to more of these sorts of actions, it just depends on if an industry can be naturally competitive or not. Like, for example, I think a nationalized shoe manufacturing is a dumb idea as it's already a highly competitive market that could be easily broken up. Hopefully that answers your question. | | |
| ▲ | bpt3 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | It does, thanks. I'm not sure how much I agree with your premise, but I'll think about it. |
|
|
|
|
|