• ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    I have no idea what country you’re in, but it’s literally the opposite situation in Canada where publicly owned SaskTel provides the best service in the country while private sector managed to create some of the most expensive and slowest infrastructure out of any G7 countries.

    A common pattern that’s observed is that initially there is a stage after privatization where there is competition between companies. However, eventually a few companies end up dominating the market and at that point you have all the same problems that the parent comment moans about being present under public ownership while having no actual control over the situation because the infrastructure is privately owned.

    That’s the real lesson for y’all.

    • pazukaza
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Your scenario isn’t against my point, public and private sectors should compete. It just sounds like there’s a lack of competition in your area, which is something that the government should fix, not private companies. So you want to give more power to an entity that can’t even fix a competition issue in the market? This is literally the responsibility of the government. As far as I know, Canada isn’t like the US, private companies don’t own the government, so what’s happening there?

      I’m just saying, wealth accumulation isn’t necessarily an evil thing. As I showed, it can also be positive. It’s just a matter of balance. I’m much more inclined to the left than the right, but I don’t see everything that happens in the right as evil.

      • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        My scenario is actually against your point because you’re not considering the full capitalist lifecycle in your argument. Capitalist competition necessarily leads to capital consolidation and monopolies by its very nature. Meanwhile, capital owning class is very much in charge in every capitalist state. Capitalists own the media, pay for political campaigns, lobbying, and so on. Working class has no real representation in politics, and no holds no actual power. All people get to do is to once every few years decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class are to represent and repress them.

        • pazukaza
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I think that just because capitalism can go wrong it doesn’t mean that capitalism is a failure. Sure, right now we’re living in a pretty dystopian capitalism, but this can happen to any system, no system is invulnerable to exploitation. This is just the same argument the far-right uses to say socialism and communism are failure because “look at North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba and the Soviet Union”.

          Unfortunately, they figured out how to exploit capitalism by buying politicians. This is bad because they get to do whatever the fuck they want with no consequences, but it doesn’t mean that wealth accumulation is bad.

          Imagine a company that didn’t exploit workers, didn’t buy politicians, cared about the environment and payed fair taxes. These companies do exist. They exist under capitalism. The same way you imagine a government that takes care of everyone, gives free education, free healthcare, takes care of workers… I could imagine a government that has too much power, destroys private companies and ignores the needs of the working class, as it has happened under socialism/communism.

          It isn’t a matter of abolishing the systems we have but finding a balance between them. Plus, politicians should be subjected to extremely harsh audits to make sure they aren’t corrupt. Lobbying shouldn’t be legal, that’s insane, but it isn’t an inherente part of capitalism.

          Idk, I think capitalism isn’t evil, humans are. Any system can go south with us.

          • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            I mean it’s been tried for over a century, and it always goes wrong the same way everywhere it’s tried because of how the system inherently functions. Meanwhile, if the problem genuinely was with the human nature that’s an argument for designing systems that inhibit negative qualities while promoting positive ones. Capitalism does the exact opposite.

            Western capitalism is responsible for horrors far worse than anything that USSR, Cuba, Venezuela, or DPRK have ever done. It has enslaved majority of the human population through pure brutality and exploits it to this day to subsidize the lifestyle of the golden billion. Yet, even with this level of exploitation, the conditions in the west are now deteriorating for the majority of the people.

            Imagining a company that didn’t exploit workers, didn’t buy politicians, cared about the environment and payed fair taxes is like imagining unicorns. Such companies if they ever get created will simply be outcompeted by companies that are willing to do all those things, because making profit is the sole fitness function for a capitalist business.

            I could imagine a government that has too much power, destroys private companies and ignores the needs of the working class, as it has happened under socialism/communism.

            Except, communists managed to achieve things such as ensuring everyone has their basic needs met, which still eludes capitalist societies to this day despite far more wealth being available.

            It isn’t a matter of abolishing the systems we have but finding a balance between them. Plus, politicians should be subjected to extremely harsh audits to make sure they aren’t corrupt. Lobbying shouldn’t be legal, that’s insane, but it isn’t an inherente part of capitalism.

            It’s not possible to have a neutral government in a society where there is mass wealth inequality. People who have wealth will always use it for political purposes. They buy media, pay bribes, groom politicians, and so on. This happens every single time capitalism is tried in a society. The only way to avoid the problem is to eliminate the ability for people to accumulate capital.

            • pazukaza
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              First, to clarify, I’m a social democrat, so I do believe workers shouldn’t be exploited but I also think private property has a valuable purpose. I’m not far-right or a billionaire supporter.

              Everything positive you’re saying about communism is just about the idea of communism. Everything negative you’re saying about capitalism is about its implementation in the real world. I don’t think Venezuelans are escaping the country because they are happy, their human rights are being violated.

              Again, I don’t like talking about the problems of implementing these systems because it is just a reflection of human corruption, not the system itself.

              I think the problem in any system is the government being corrupted. Right now capitalism is going wrong because the government can be bought by private interest. In an authoritarian system, corruption is an internal problem because they already have centralized power. In both cases, the worker class suffers.

              If in capitalism the governments weren’t corrupted, companies wouldn’t become that large mostly because they are monopolies. Also, the government would severily punish them for exploiting their workers. None of these things are “normal” or accepted in capitalism, the same way a corrupted government denying people their basic needs is not normal or accepted in communism. But it can happen.

              I don’t know what the solution is. Human corruption fucks everything, I don’t think changing systems will actually help at all. But that’s not the point. To be honest, I think we’re already fucked, corruption is too widespread. Anyone in power, left or right, just wants their cut. And if they actually try to do anything positive, they’ll be sabotaged by the corruption forces that remain.

              We have a real problem. I don’t think capitalism is the root of the problem, and I don’t think socialism or communism are the cure.

              • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                I think there needs to be a mix of cooperative ownership and state owned industry. State owned industry does a good job providing basic services everyone needs that have to be done without a profit motive. Private industry under cooperative ownership can provide nice to have things on top of that.

                The capitalist model has no place in decent society, and it’s not necessary for anything. While corruption exists in all human societies, it’s at absolutely stratospheric levels under capitalism. There was inequality, but there simply weren’t people like Musk or Bezos running around USSR.

                Changing systems demonstrably does have a huge effect on society. You can just look at what happened to post Soviet republics after introduction of capitalism. The same people who behaved decently under the communist system turned into oligarchs overnight. It’s pretty clear that capitalism is in fact the problem. Communism might not be the ideal system, but it’s certainly a step in the right direction.

                • pazukaza
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Yeha, that doesn’t sound bad at all. But in that scenario:

                  • cooperatives would still need to accumulate wealth in order to provide complex services, like car or chip manufacturers. Innovating on engines, processors, GPUs, phones… Requires large investments and risk.

                  • Everyone wouldn’t be paid the same in those cooperatives, so workers still depend on their company being fair.

                  • Like any democratic system, it would be prone to corruption. Internal bribes could happen to benefit some members over others. Low skill workers could vote to have a system that removes personal incentives from high skill roles, pushing them to other companies.

                  • Cooperatives could still bribe the government.

                  Just because they are a bit more socialized, it doesn’t mean they won’t break when corruption touches them.

                  Public companies providing the basic services with no competition is another problem. No competition means no incentive to improve or be modernized. There’s no frame of reference on what’s a good service.

                  Plus, there’s nothing scarier in my opinion than a corrupted and authoritarian government. A corrupted and absolute power? No thanks, not a risk worth taking. Every government can be corrupted but when it happens to an authoritarian one, shit hits the fan.