• ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    I urge you to actually learn about Marxism, because your claims are demonstrably false. Things like supply chains work just fine, and in many cases far better than they do under capitalism and markets.

    • timestatic@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      Can you explain how so? In capitalism the market adjusts to the need of the individual through monetary incentives. With the complexity of the products we have today it’s almost impossible to adjust the entire supply chain. Do you have any case as an example where it works far better?

      • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        I mean there are lots of obvious examples of capitalist markets misallocating resources on a massive scale. Take the current AI hype or the blockchain madness that preceded it. In general, capitalism does a really poor job of ensuring that the needs of the working majority are met, and allocating resources in equitable fashion that benefits the working majority. US is one of the richest countries in the world, yet it has incredible amounts of people living in destitute conditions.

        The obvious comparison is USSR vs US bloc during the cold war. US ended up in a dominant position because it was an ocean away. While Europe and USSR took the brunt of the war. US got to spin up their industry, and then massively profited from reconstruction of Europe. Meanwhile, USSR had to rebuild effectively on its own. Yet, even starting from such a massively disadvantaged position, USSR managed to challenge the western bloc and was seen as an existential threat by the US.

        Furthermore, USSR produced many technological firsts. USSR was the first to put a satellite in space, and led majority of the space race. They produced the first Tokamak thermonuclear experimental system, developed the first intercontinental ballistic missile, and so on. It’s pretty clear that innovation was quite vibrant in USSR without any need for markets.

        • timestatic@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          I believe the way is to go for something in between. I believe the state is needed to regulate the economy and ensure the safety and well-being of the citizens while keeping the economic freedom that allows for competition and success through novel ideas. Generally something like the Social market economy if you’re interested. I believe the USSR is a horrible example as the economy relied on oil in order to function and is widely regarded by workers who used to live under it as a suppressive country that ignored human rights. The innovation in the USSR was all directed top down from the government and funnily enough stemmed out of competition with the US.

          The leadership of the USSR tried to grow the economy in an irresponsible manner which starved millions. While I would like if we would incentivize innovation more the economy in capitalist countries had many smaller quality of life improvements outside of the space race.

          When it comes to blockchain technology and ai I think the hype was temporary with blockchain and it itself is quite an interesting and innovative but useless tech. For AI I believe we will see them improve a lot and become many times better than the stupid chatbots we have today and it will probably be the driving factor of innovation of the 21. century. I know this is quite the bold claim but it has a lot of potential.

          Ownership also holds one accountable. Were in east-germany many people didn’t see the point in work as the government ensured a certain living standard a potential to rise through new ideas and hard work is non-existent. If we were a hivemind like ants I believe this would work wonderfully but I think we are just too different so we need to take the best aspects of history and not swerve to too strong ideologies.

          • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            The leadership of the USSR tried to grow the economy in an irresponsible manner which starved millions.

            That’s factually inaccurate. Russia went from a backwards agrarian society where people travelled by horse and carriage to being the first in space in the span of 40 years. Russia showed incredible growth after the revolution that surpassed the rest of the world:

            USSR doubled life expectancy in just 20 years. A newborn child in 1926-27 had a life expectancy of 44.4 years, up from 32.3 years thirty years before. In 1958-59 the life expectancy for newborns went up to 68.6 years. the Semashko system of the USSR increased lifespan by 50% in 20 years. By the 1960’s, lifespans in the USSR were comparable to those in the USA:

            Quality of nutrition improved after the Soviet revolution, and the last time USSR had a famine was in 1940s. CIA data suggests they ate just as much as Americans after WW2 peroid while having better nutrition:

            believe the USSR is a horrible example as the economy relied on oil in order to function and is widely regarded by workers who used to live under it as a suppressive country that ignored human rights.

            Having actually grown up in USSR, I can tell you that this is just US propaganda you’re regurgitating.

            I believe the way is to go for something in between

            Going for something in between is China’s approach. While private companies and a stock market exist, they operate within a socialist framework, guided by the principles laid out by Chen Yun. Chen advocated for a “birdcage economy,” where the market acts as a bird, free to fly within the confines of a cage representing the overall economic plan. His approach, adopted in the early 1980s, allowed for use of market forces for efficient allocation of resources, while the state maintained ultimate control over the direction and goals of economic development.

            When it comes to blockchain technology and ai I think the hype was temporary with blockchain and it itself is quite an interesting and innovative but useless tech. For AI I believe we will see them improve a lot and become many times better than the stupid chatbots we have today and it will probably be the driving factor of innovation of the 21. century. I know this is quite the bold claim but it has a lot of potential.

            Another way we could phrase this as the leadership of the US tried to grow the economy in an irresponsible manner which starved millions. https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/31/us/food-insecurity-30-million-census-survey/index.html

            Ownership also holds one accountable. Were in east-germany many people didn’t see the point in work as the government ensured a certain living standard a potential to rise through new ideas and hard work is non-existent.

            That’s why cooperative ownership is important. Capitalist enterprises have exact same problem where the workers are alienated from their labor.

            • timestatic@feddit.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              5 months ago

              I’m gonna address point one for now:

              Also, as I said the US is not a good country for a western Social market economy with a good welfare state.

              • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                5 months ago

                The fact that you get your world view solely from wikipedia explains a lot actually.

                • timestatic@feddit.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  5 months ago

                  Nah i just took them as sources. You used wikipedia as a source as well. What do you know about me to be able to judge my knowledge just because your opinion differs from mine. I just used it since it was quick to find and quote and if I quoted western sources you’d probably say its propaganda or something.

                  • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    5 months ago

                    I can only go by what you say and what you link to, which is nonsense that comes directly from wikipedia. I’ve provided you with plenty of non wikipedia sources demonstrating that what you say is false. You never actually addressed any of it, and just spammed wiki links. Now you’re acting like your opinion is worth something.