The idea that to call a system “Socialist” or to say that a party in power is genuinely working towards xyz aims means that the system doesn’t have problems it needs to work on is flawed
Like capitalism, the problem is embedded in the way the system works, it is systemic. They definitely need to work on it, it needs more than a wash. even replacing the government would not work. Because the problem has never been who’s the one in control, but what safeguards are in place to ensure the control isn’t abused, the problem of capitalism isn’t the mere existence of private owners, but that there are no forms of control being put in place that prevent abuse… which is exactly the problem China has. If China finds a solution to solve this, I don’t see why it would not be applicable to a private ownership system.
I’d counter that by saying Trump also lost the popular vote twice
He’s popular now, though. Historically, most fascists have been overwhelmingly popular when they have won elections too. And they often pushed to keep their popularity through dirty manipulation tactics and unrestrained control over the state that places primary importance on their own reputation…
Like I said, being popular is no proof of being honest / good.
As for your system not existing in reality, I am specifically questioning why you want that.
Ah, you should have asked that then.
There’s more than one reason:
I want to test whether it’s true that your ideal utopic Communism really works BECAUSE of the ban on private ownership, or does it only work (if it does, it has not been proven) regardless of it (or maybe even in spite of it). If it’s true that banning primary ownership is a necessary piece to achieve freedom for the Workers, then it should be impossible to postulate a position where a strong government enforces extreme regulation against private owners that forces them to become (in essence) executors of the will of the State, not much different than a well regulated official that is forced to behave.
I said it before, I’m a defender of the separation of power. I think it would be much more difficult to ensure people responsible get punished by their bad acts if they are friends of the ones doing the punishing. I’d say that feel that removing the figure of the independent person responsible of distribution (responsible as in, the one who would be scrutinized) to replace it with a person who is no longer independent might actually make it harder to ensure the scrutiny is actually effectively carried out.
there’s a difference between funneling all of profits in an economy with a large private sector towards social safety nets like you seem to be wanting (at which point public ownership entirely is more efficient)
Can you explain how is it more efficient?
I have no genuine idea what you mean by “what rules did they set” to ensure this
I think I can respond that in the other thread, since that’s the same question I was asking (over and over, in multiple parts of this thread), I hope this time you can understand what I mean.
What you’re doing is Utopianism, trying to imagine a better society to create outright, rather than analyzing where society is heading and how we can best steer that.
You are doing it backwards if you think you can steer without first having a goal/destination. Why do you want me to explain how would I steer the society if you don’t even seem to agree with me on what is the root of the problem that needs to be fixed?
Historically, fascists have not been that popular. You don’t really have a point ubless you think being popular is bad.
That doesn’t really make much sense to me, it isn’t about banning private property but publicly owning and collectivizing all property. There would be no real mechanisms for aquiring private property or outcompeting the rest of society. Moreover, it isn’t a utopia, there will be problems and issues that people have to work through.
Recall elections.
It’s more efficient because you have, rather than competing individuals, a common cooperative plan and the ability to make calls from a larger view of how the economy is functioning. There’s no need for profit, either.
The thing is, the question you have been asking over and over is vague. “Fairness” means a million different things, “exploitation” means a million different things. You were never specific until this comment.
Communists speculate on what a future society may look like, but focus on the present systems and present trajectories. If part of it is wrong or impossible, then it won’t be implemented. You can only know something through practice. Utopians focus on what a perfect society should be, rather than analyzing trends and movements in society to predict the course it will take. Communism isn’t describes the way it is because that’s “ideal,” but as a prediction of what will happen as humanity develops beyond the confines of Capitalism, which cannot last forever.
How do you know you need to recall elections if the system is opaque? how do you recall elections if those who even suggest that’s needed are silenced via dirty means? How do you ensure alternatives cannot be pushed down by the ruling government? In a system where reputation is placed as the most important thing, how do you ensure that reputation is fair and the ruling party is not manipulating the information in order to mudden the opposition’s reputation and strengthen their own?
Historically, fascists have not been that popular
The objective fact is that they have had enough popularity, multiple times, to actually win elections.
So, again: is popularity PROOF of good will? … or is it (like you previosly admitted before, despite being defensive about it) only an “indication”?
Because there are all sort of things that it could be an indication of. Not just good will, it could also be an indication that censorship and social pressure of a party of powerful people does work at keeping up a good reputation over a set of people.
That doesn’t really make much sense to me, it isn’t about banning private property but publicly owning and collectivizing all property
Does that mean that you agree with me that doing it would not fix the problem?
There would be no real mechanisms for aquiring private property or outcompeting the rest of society
I feel you are just playing with words. Would you be banning “the establishment of State-driven mechanisms of acquiring private property”? or would you be actually allowing the State to put rules to allow/enforce those mechanisms?
Do I need to start saying “State-driven mechanisms for individuals to acquire private property” instead of “private ownership” from now on to satisfy the way you wanna use the term?
Moreover, it isn’t a utopia, there will be problems and issues that people have to work through.
Yea, that was my point, it’s the problems and issues are what needs to be addressed to make it “a utopia”.
Recall elections.
Ah, so you don’t think the separation of power is useful if there already are elections? Because that’s what point 2 was… either you are not addressing it, or you legitimately think elections make it so that separation is not useful.
Note that in my ideal state, after a private owner is destituted, I would not see a problem with calling for elections on who should be the next owner. Again, this is not something that is incompatible with “State-driven mechanisms for individuals to acquire private property”.
The thing is, the question you have been asking over and over is vague. “Fairness” means a million different things, “exploitation” means a million different things. You were never specific until this comment.
Yes, because it’s something that touches on morality, it is difficult to determine, just the same as how it’s difficult to determine that “good” means.
But you did not put this term into question before. It’s the first time you asked, even though you used the term as well. What do you think counts as fairness for you?
Specifically, the kind of “Fairness” you used in this comment, what did you mean there?
“Capitalism is categorized by a Mode of Production where Private Ownership and Markets are primary, Socialism is categorized by Public Ownership and planning being primary, and Communism specifically is a Mode of Production where all property has been collectivized globally, and Class therefore erased, with the State alongside it, leaving a world republic. It isn’t a “one drop” rule or about which is more common, but which is primary. Fairness is indeed not the determining characteristic.”
You said here that fairness is not the “determining characteristic” of Capitalism/Socialism/Communism. What kind of fairness were you thinking here?
In my case, what I was referring to is following rules that are designed for the benefit of the people.
In retrospect, after seeing what you meant by “primary”, I’m really wondering what did you mean, since later you told me that the State not working for the people was, for you, a determining characteristic of Capitalism… so I’m expecting you have a different definition of “fairness”, otherwise there would seem there’s a contradiction.
Communists speculate on what a future society may look like, but focus on the present systems and present trajectories. […]
You did not answer the question:
“Why do you want me to explain how would I steer the society if you don’t even seem to agree with me on what is the root of the problem that needs to be fixed?”
Do focus on the present trajectory, please… you cannot set a proper trajectory if your plan leads to the wrong target.
Like capitalism, the problem is embedded in the way the system works, it is systemic. They definitely need to work on it, it needs more than a wash. even replacing the government would not work. Because the problem has never been who’s the one in control, but what safeguards are in place to ensure the control isn’t abused, the problem of capitalism isn’t the mere existence of private owners, but that there are no forms of control being put in place that prevent abuse… which is exactly the problem China has. If China finds a solution to solve this, I don’t see why it would not be applicable to a private ownership system.
He’s popular now, though. Historically, most fascists have been overwhelmingly popular when they have won elections too. And they often pushed to keep their popularity through dirty manipulation tactics and unrestrained control over the state that places primary importance on their own reputation…
Like I said, being popular is no proof of being honest / good.
Ah, you should have asked that then.
There’s more than one reason:
I want to test whether it’s true that your ideal utopic Communism really works BECAUSE of the ban on private ownership, or does it only work (if it does, it has not been proven) regardless of it (or maybe even in spite of it). If it’s true that banning primary ownership is a necessary piece to achieve freedom for the Workers, then it should be impossible to postulate a position where a strong government enforces extreme regulation against private owners that forces them to become (in essence) executors of the will of the State, not much different than a well regulated official that is forced to behave.
I said it before, I’m a defender of the separation of power. I think it would be much more difficult to ensure people responsible get punished by their bad acts if they are friends of the ones doing the punishing. I’d say that feel that removing the figure of the independent person responsible of distribution (responsible as in, the one who would be scrutinized) to replace it with a person who is no longer independent might actually make it harder to ensure the scrutiny is actually effectively carried out.
Can you explain how is it more efficient?
I think I can respond that in the other thread, since that’s the same question I was asking (over and over, in multiple parts of this thread), I hope this time you can understand what I mean.
You are doing it backwards if you think you can steer without first having a goal/destination. Why do you want me to explain how would I steer the society if you don’t even seem to agree with me on what is the root of the problem that needs to be fixed?
There’s the option of recall elections.
Historically, fascists have not been that popular. You don’t really have a point ubless you think being popular is bad.
That doesn’t really make much sense to me, it isn’t about banning private property but publicly owning and collectivizing all property. There would be no real mechanisms for aquiring private property or outcompeting the rest of society. Moreover, it isn’t a utopia, there will be problems and issues that people have to work through.
Recall elections.
It’s more efficient because you have, rather than competing individuals, a common cooperative plan and the ability to make calls from a larger view of how the economy is functioning. There’s no need for profit, either.
The thing is, the question you have been asking over and over is vague. “Fairness” means a million different things, “exploitation” means a million different things. You were never specific until this comment.
Communists speculate on what a future society may look like, but focus on the present systems and present trajectories. If part of it is wrong or impossible, then it won’t be implemented. You can only know something through practice. Utopians focus on what a perfect society should be, rather than analyzing trends and movements in society to predict the course it will take. Communism isn’t describes the way it is because that’s “ideal,” but as a prediction of what will happen as humanity develops beyond the confines of Capitalism, which cannot last forever.
How do you know you need to recall elections if the system is opaque? how do you recall elections if those who even suggest that’s needed are silenced via dirty means? How do you ensure alternatives cannot be pushed down by the ruling government? In a system where reputation is placed as the most important thing, how do you ensure that reputation is fair and the ruling party is not manipulating the information in order to mudden the opposition’s reputation and strengthen their own?
The objective fact is that they have had enough popularity, multiple times, to actually win elections.
So, again: is popularity PROOF of good will? … or is it (like you previosly admitted before, despite being defensive about it) only an “indication”?
Because there are all sort of things that it could be an indication of. Not just good will, it could also be an indication that censorship and social pressure of a party of powerful people does work at keeping up a good reputation over a set of people.
Does that mean that you agree with me that doing it would not fix the problem?
I feel you are just playing with words. Would you be banning “the establishment of State-driven mechanisms of acquiring private property”? or would you be actually allowing the State to put rules to allow/enforce those mechanisms?
Do I need to start saying “State-driven mechanisms for individuals to acquire private property” instead of “private ownership” from now on to satisfy the way you wanna use the term?
Yea, that was my point, it’s the problems and issues are what needs to be addressed to make it “a utopia”.
Ah, so you don’t think the separation of power is useful if there already are elections? Because that’s what point 2 was… either you are not addressing it, or you legitimately think elections make it so that separation is not useful.
Note that in my ideal state, after a private owner is destituted, I would not see a problem with calling for elections on who should be the next owner. Again, this is not something that is incompatible with “State-driven mechanisms for individuals to acquire private property”.
Yes, because it’s something that touches on morality, it is difficult to determine, just the same as how it’s difficult to determine that “good” means.
But you did not put this term into question before. It’s the first time you asked, even though you used the term as well. What do you think counts as fairness for you?
Specifically, the kind of “Fairness” you used in this comment, what did you mean there?
“Capitalism is categorized by a Mode of Production where Private Ownership and Markets are primary, Socialism is categorized by Public Ownership and planning being primary, and Communism specifically is a Mode of Production where all property has been collectivized globally, and Class therefore erased, with the State alongside it, leaving a world republic. It isn’t a “one drop” rule or about which is more common, but which is primary. Fairness is indeed not the determining characteristic.”
You said here that fairness is not the “determining characteristic” of Capitalism/Socialism/Communism. What kind of fairness were you thinking here?
In my case, what I was referring to is following rules that are designed for the benefit of the people.
In retrospect, after seeing what you meant by “primary”, I’m really wondering what did you mean, since later you told me that the State not working for the people was, for you, a determining characteristic of Capitalism… so I’m expecting you have a different definition of “fairness”, otherwise there would seem there’s a contradiction.
You did not answer the question:
“Why do you want me to explain how would I steer the society if you don’t even seem to agree with me on what is the root of the problem that needs to be fixed?”
Do focus on the present trajectory, please… you cannot set a proper trajectory if your plan leads to the wrong target.