Your wife’s love is the best because she is Free, not Free to everyone.
A country is great because it has many things that are Free (freedom, guns, hunting) but not free to everyone.
Heaven is amazing because its Free; but not Free to everyone.
I could go on. This is why socialism can work and can not work. Free things work amazingly well if the bar to entry creates a proper filter of who it is free to.
Jesus is the only exception
You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
1
devotech2 on scored.co
1 day ago1 point(+0/-0/+1Score on mirror)1 child
I think you're getting socialism mixed up with social democracy. Socialism isn't a welfare state, it's a change in the means of production going from being privately owned towards either being state-owned and public, or being worker owned. So it cuts out the capitalist class and it either democratizes the workplace or puts it under the control of the government. However, you can have your cake and eat it too by using the market to allocate resources while maintaining either actual or at least effective state socialism. Like China, or Hitler's Germany.
Although, I believe that modern computing technology can make a command economy feasible. And we really are moving towards a "capitalistic command economy" anyways, because corporations are using high-tech computations to create economic plans and their competitors are less and less relevant every day, thus removing the competition and any innovation that may arise from it. In that sense command economies are more or less inevitable and the truly "free" market will become a thing of the past as it becomes less efficient. Corporatocracy is a form of planned economy. Whether that command economy comes from corporations, the government, or the workers is up to the will, or lack thereof, of its constituents.
Furthermore, I consider that Israel must be destroyed
Well ... command economies are just communist tyranny by another name. Same puppet show. Different set of puppets. You can trace it directly from Rousseau to Hegel to Marx and on up to Schwabb.
Don't diss hegel because he's also foundational to fascism. The philosophy of the hegelian state was foundational to italy directly and indirectly to germany, and it worked, very well in fact. That being said, communism doesn't have a command economy because the state doesn't exist under communism, which removes the state from socialism. The ussr et al believed themselves to be in a transitory phase towards communism. Communism effectively advocates for a cooperative economy, which is neither market nor command. A command economy doesn't exist in communism because it cannot exist in communism.
A command economy isn't capitalist nor socialist, neither is a market economy capitalist nor socialist, nor is a cooperative economy either of the 2 . It's all about allocation of resources and whether or not planning is done by the state or by markets or by co-ops. The debate of socialism vs capitalism boils down *exclusively* to "who owns the means of production" and nothing else. Everything else such as the type of economy, welfare, education, infrastructure, Healthcare, these are all secondary questions that arise naturally from the primary question (who controls MoP).
Capitalism *requires* private ownership (at least majority private anyways), socialism is more flexible and productive forces can either be worker owned or state-owned. A curious example however was natsoc Germany, where most of the companies were *technically* privately owned, but were in the hands of party members. So, german privatization was only de jure private, in reality a large amount of the businesses were de facto nationalized, while keeping the advantages of the market economy anyways. This is why everyone shits themselves when trying to describe hitlers economics, the conservative grifters calls him a far left socialist while the leftist says he was an ultra-capitalist. They're both wrong, but not entirely wrong either, both of them are just cherrypicking. Today we see the same thing with people trying to comprehend Chinese economics.
Furthermore, I consider that Israel must be destroyed
NatSoc Germany was a third position, and it worked incredibly well. Germany’s socialist programs seemed to incentivize right wing values, like incentivizing child birth (population growth), marriage, building infrastructure and homeownership, car ownership, etc for the citizenry, so they wanted the people to have a stake in their nation through some amount of private property for the individual, something to call their own, an ability to travel for work (independence), etc, while individual effort was still treated accordingly, so being highly motivated or being really good at a particular job/skill could lead to rewards, you’d be put in positions where your abilities best served the economy, the state and your people, rather than taking away incentives from the people who are motivated by ensuring everyone gets the same outcome no matter how shitty or effective that person is at doing their job….it seemed like the main motivator in communist Russia was avoiding a labor camp or death, that’s not a great motivator if you want your people to be creative and to see their nation as something they truly care about.
Although, I believe that modern computing technology can make a command economy feasible. And we really are moving towards a "capitalistic command economy" anyways, because corporations are using high-tech computations to create economic plans and their competitors are less and less relevant every day, thus removing the competition and any innovation that may arise from it. In that sense command economies are more or less inevitable and the truly "free" market will become a thing of the past as it becomes less efficient. Corporatocracy is a form of planned economy. Whether that command economy comes from corporations, the government, or the workers is up to the will, or lack thereof, of its constituents.
Furthermore, I consider that Israel must be destroyed
A command economy isn't capitalist nor socialist, neither is a market economy capitalist nor socialist, nor is a cooperative economy either of the 2 . It's all about allocation of resources and whether or not planning is done by the state or by markets or by co-ops. The debate of socialism vs capitalism boils down *exclusively* to "who owns the means of production" and nothing else. Everything else such as the type of economy, welfare, education, infrastructure, Healthcare, these are all secondary questions that arise naturally from the primary question (who controls MoP).
Capitalism *requires* private ownership (at least majority private anyways), socialism is more flexible and productive forces can either be worker owned or state-owned. A curious example however was natsoc Germany, where most of the companies were *technically* privately owned, but were in the hands of party members. So, german privatization was only de jure private, in reality a large amount of the businesses were de facto nationalized, while keeping the advantages of the market economy anyways. This is why everyone shits themselves when trying to describe hitlers economics, the conservative grifters calls him a far left socialist while the leftist says he was an ultra-capitalist. They're both wrong, but not entirely wrong either, both of them are just cherrypicking. Today we see the same thing with people trying to comprehend Chinese economics.
Furthermore, I consider that Israel must be destroyed
Chinese economics is just the primitive "stakeholder capitalism" that Schwabb pushed