- cross-posted to:
- usauthoritarianism@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- usauthoritarianism@lemmy.world
This is actually an older news story, and it does appear as though she recovered from this before her death.
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/14389544
Both. It applies to both if they are at the extreme end. Socialism has extra steps.
And to be absolutely clear, I mean socialism with no capitalistic elements. An in the middle system is what I am advocating from the start.
What are these “Capitalistic Elements” that mean you cannot have Socialism?
The greedy motivations of decision makers being aligned with prosperity for the people and separated from lawmaking power.
How do you make a successful company? Sell good cheap things to the people. You get filthy rich, but people have good cheap products to buy that would not exist otherwise. And they get their share in form of wages.
Government needs to be separate to be able to legislate worker protections such as minimal wage, work safety, etc.
Are you under the impression that in Socialism, economic planning is done without the participation of the Proletariat? That’s nonsense.
Secondly, products do not need to be good to make a profit, hence the process of enshittification. Workers also get less than their share, they make all of the Value but the Capitalist entitles themselves to the bulk of that Value.
Government does not need to be separate. This is nothing but vibes based analysis.
https://lemmy.world/comment/9597138
If the proletariat participates, the values are misaligned the other way. See thread above.
As for whether products need to be good, there are two caveats. In most cases of enshittification online, you are mistaking what is the product. The advertisers are the customers that pay, users are the product.
The other caveat is anti-competitive and anti-consumer practices which is one of the many reasons why you need independent government to regulate those.
You have not backed up that “the values are misaligned the other way.” It is better for production to serve all of humanity, rather than an elite class of owners.
Enshittification happens all the time. Over time, Capitalists try to squeeze as much profit out of as little investment as possible, which usually takes the form of cost cutting in materials and increased exploitation. The fashion industry is a great example of this, and is part of why vintage fashion is popular right now.
All in all, you’re still entitely vibes-based.
First, pick what you want to argue. If you think I am wrong in the other thread, reply there. The discussion there is ongoing anyway.
Second of all, everyone agrees it is best for capital to serve all of humanity. The disagreement is about how to best achieve that.
Third, cost cutting without affecting quality of goods is a good thing. If it does compromise quality, buying from companies that don’t is the point. You are describing the system working.
And finally, it is not vibe based. It is rough outlines of probably over a hundred hours of study and thinking crammed into a few paragraphs. If you want details, I recommend starting by reading up on Game Theory, which is a branch of mathematics that models optimal “play” (behavior) given some goals and rules. This will help you evaluate if the people in your system are really forced to work in the best interest of everyone or if they can game your system to enrich themselves. Then look into macroeconomics to get an idea of what the rules are. And remember, laws are not unbreakable rules. Laws work more like: “If you break this law and get caught, this is the penalty”.
If you can build a communist system (or any other really) that truly benefits the people without creating inequality, I see a Nobel price in your future.
Some areas to focus on:
I’m purely replying to your comments as they are.
No, you believe Capital should serve Capitalists, otherwise you would democratize production.
Cost cutting does affect quality of goods most of the time.
Your analysis here has absolutely been presented as vibes based.
Simple as.
I believe it is not possible to democratize production, that is what is at issue here. If it was possible, I am all for it. Lets continue in the other thread. I want to hear the specifics of how you would be able to run these planners and councils.