Rather overly optimistic communist at that. Told me to study up on communist theory without ever engaging with my best points. Talks a lot, says very little.
Well? Did you study up in communist theory, or are you content always getting dunked on?
Also, please link us the thread where Cowbee “ignored your best points” so we can take a look at it. I’m curious to see what you’re talking about. I suspect you’re lying.
Sigh, Cowbee painstakingly engaged with you, displayed patience and empathy and kindness, and this is the route you went. Reading your comments, you’re completely and utterly clueless. You would do well to stop throwing mud at people who take time to help you parse your scattered “ideology” and instead do some reading and shut the fuck up.
As stated earlier, my best points were essentially ignored. If that’s what ‘getting dunked on’ means, I’m beyond fine with it lol
I don’t know how this is mud throwing when he describes himself as an optimist and at the same time was the ‘clueless one’ on what a moderately conservative communist stands for.
I love your take though, especially the ‘parse your scattered ideology’ bit, that was hilarious. I believe Cowbee has been clued in on my perspective despite my own cluelessness haha
I read through your thread with Cowbee that chloroken had listed and am still confused what you mean by a moderately conservative communist. Can you elaborate why you choose to describe a communist, essentially a person who wants to bring change, as conservative, which means to oppose change?
The thread already highlights this, but the target of the change dictates the label.
You are assuming capitalism is the steady baseline and communism is the disruption. But in reality, global capital is the true revolutionary force. It constantly tears apart the planet, destroying ecosystems just to keep expanding. It is insanely radical.
So if capital is the radical disruption, then what does it mean to be a conservative? ‘oppose change’ certainly doesn’t cover it or much of anything at all. It means you want to conserve the basic conditions of life against this chaos. I am a communist because it takes a radical break to stop capital, but I am a conservative because the whole point is to defend the physical world from its destructive progress. Communist means, conservative ends.
I feel like your true definition of ‘change’ means ‘movement toward liberation’ if you could only be more specific. If a train is heading towards a cliff, hitting the brakes is conservative in the literal sense, but it is also the only sane and radical thing to do. You need a revolutionary tool (communism) to apply the brakes, but the goal is ultimately conservative (keeping the train from crashing).
Conservative doesn’t mean what you think it does. Conservative means not changing the state at all. Capitalism is the status quo. Communism is something new, something untried, that resolves to break the status quo. Conserving the environment means to stop whatever actions we are doing to change it. Usually people mean stopping the destructive actions towards the environment, so it has eventually come to mean saving the environment/biodiversity, etc. That still doesn’t change the meaning of the word conservative, which means upholding the prevailing state of things.
If a train is heading towards a cliff, hitting the brakes is conservative in the literal sense
Using your example, letting the train run is conservative, and hitting the brakes to stop it (changing the state) is radical.
Your mistake is treating capitalism as a static “status quo.” It isn’t. Capitalism is a dynamic process of constant, disruptive revolution. It actively destroys the ecological status quo every single day. So if “conservative” means upholding the prevailing state of things, then defending the physical world against capitalist expansion is conservative. You have to radically change the economy just to conserve the environment.
The train analogy only proves my point. If a train is accelerating toward a cliff, letting it run preserves the engine’s current operation, but it radically destroys the train. Hitting the brakes disrupts the engine’s operation in order to conserve the train. I want to disrupt the capitalist engine to conserve the physical world. Communist means, conservative ends.
You don’t get to make moral arguments that anyone takes seriously and you sure don’t get to criticize others arguments. Yours led you to support Rhodesia.
I don’t support any government, but I recognize the right of the Ukranian people to defend themselves against imperial aggression.
And you specifically should be very careful about calling other people “fash” given your long history of supporting authoritarian state-capitalist regimes or worse.
Oh, but you do support a government in tangible terms because you support the war the regime is fighting and the atrocities it commits against its people. The regime literally kidnaps people off the street and forces them into fighting. You’ve openly stated many times that you support continuation of the war and that you stand on the side of a openly fascist regime. That makes you a fascist.
Also, imagine being over the age of 13 and using terms like authoritarian. 🤡
The term authoritarianism is utterly meaningless because all governments rely on coercion to maintain their authority. The state is fundamentally an instrument that’s used by the ruling class to maintain its dominance. The whole notion that political systems can be neatly categorized into authoritarian or democratic binaries is deeply infantile.
The reality is that every government derives its authority from its monopoly on legal violence. The ability to enforce laws, suppress dissent, and maintain order is derived from control over police, military, and judicial systems. Whether a government is labelled authoritarian or democratic, the fundamental basis of its power lies here. Therefore, the only meaningful questions to ask are which class interests it represents, and to what extent can it be held accountable to them.
What ultimately matters is which class controls the institutions of state violence. In capitalist democracies, the government represent the interests of the economic elites who fund political campaigns, own media outlets, and control key industries. Western public lacks the mechanisms necessary to hold the government to account, and the ruling class is disconnected from the broader population. That’s precisely what’s driving political discontent all across western sphere today. Meanwhile, in so-called authoritarian regimes, the ruling party serves the working class as seen in countries like China, Cuba, or Vietnam. Hence why there is widespread public trust in these government and they enjoy broad support from the masses.
To add to that, the whole idea of state capitalism is a misnomer. It basically says that while you have state owned enterprise, the internal capitalist relations within it remain largely the same. While that’s true, there is a fundamental difference here. Capitalism is a system where people who own capital hire workers to exploit there labor with the purpose of increasing their capital. The goal of capitalist enterprise is to create wealth for the owners with any social benefits being strictly incidental. On the other hand, the purpose of state enterprise is to provide social value. Workers in state owned companies are producing things that the society needs. They are working for their own benefit and those of others around them. Therefore, the nature of work itself is fundamentally different from actual capitalism.
I guess I shouldn’t be expecting much from somebody who equates a socialist state where means of production are publicly owned with fascism.
the Ukranian people to defend themselves against imperial aggression.
The Ukranian people want an end to the war, and it’s only the US imperial puppet regime the live under that has decided to aggressively kidnap them into vans at gunpoint instead.
Full support to the brave Ukranians who kill draft officers.
Communism by itself isn’t bad, nor is capitalism, but both assume that their proponents are immune to greed, and that their opponent are full of it.
There are good things in both, bad things in both. The problem is to find people that are truly altruistic, and that have the moral fortitude to stay altruistic.
Edit: y’all can downvote all you want, I’ll stand by my opinion unless someone has the honesty to argue on that.
Heavily disagree, friend. Capitalism by itself is bad. It may have good things, but that hardly justifies the inhuman and cruel roots it stands on. Capitalism does not assume that its proponents should be free of greed, it wants them to be greedy. Why the hell would you want to keep expanding your money if not for greed? Capitalism runs on this principle of self expanding value and inequal exchanges. It strives for profit, nothing else. I haven’t studied communism well enough, but communism doesn’t assume it’s proponents to be immune to greed, it dismantles the institutions by which greed operates(money, class, and state).
Can you list the good parts of capitalism? If you say the free market, capitalism doesn’t have a monopoly on that concept. Socialism and communism have free market aspects too, but they centralize control of resources so that 5 people can’t drain everything and ascend to the top.
Both having a form of free market doesn’t make it suddenly good for one side and bad for the other.
Some sort of free market is good, so new idea can brew, some of them being one day attempted, other won’t because it ends up either not getting traction, or would very obviously fail after some research.
Problem is with too much planning is that it doesn’t give as much place for innovation, as well as put too much weight on a single point of failure.
That played a good part in the USSR famines, like the holodomor, which was then further aggravated by their unwillingness to admit they fucked up, blaming it on other factors.
But if they had learned from their mistakes, it would have improved, but unfortunately those very same error were repeated multiple time (see the multiple famines the USSR faced while strangely their western counterparts did not).
And I’ll pass on the other similar failures (Chernobyl, among other), that follow the very same pattern.
Of course, the USSR had some very clear wins, like the first part of the race to space, and others.
The USSR could have been a success if their leader weren’t selfish idiots, which os a shame since I’d rather live in a good cummunism regime than a good capitalism regime.
I always worked toward such ideals, I contributed to some open-source project (Gnome, KDE, mostly translation, bug report, but also some packaging for OpenSUSE and Fedora.
I’m a bit tired of those who blindly follow ideologies without having the intellectual honesty to recognize where said ideology fucked up and where it was great. Do I have to be called a social-traitor for every reflection on communism or socialism?
I doubt Marx would be happy to see those he tried to enlighten sheepishly follow whoever yell the loudest… Even if they yell parta of what he tried to teach them.
But if they had learned from their mistakes, it would have improved, but unfortunately those very same error were repeated multiple time (see the multiple famines the USSR faced while strangely their western counterparts did not.
What other famine after holodomor? I can only think of one but was during siege from the nazis.
1921-1922 (Povolzhye, or Volga famine), 5-10 millions dreath
1932-1933 (Holodomor), 3.5 to 7 millions death in Ukraine alone
1930-1933 (Asharshylyk), 1.5 million deaths (seem small, but that was 40% of then Kazakhstan population)
1932-1933 (at the same time than the Holodomor, but in Russia) : 1 to 2 millions deaths
1946-1947: 1 to 1.5 millions deaths
And that’s only those who were big enough to be impossible to hide completely.
All of them have something in common: the central government minimised them, and tried to hide them. Some weren’t even acknowledged until after the USSR fall.
All of them are a combination of bad luck (war, drought) combined with hasty decisions which made what could have been a hard year a generational disaster.
You still believe in human nature detached from material conditions, which is an idealist position. There’s nothing convincing anyone can say to you until you challenge this position.
Neither capitalism nor communism assume that their proponents are immune to greed. Capitalism was developed as an improvement over (European) feudalism and mercantilism. The idea is that division of labour expands the quantity and diversity of goods that can be produced. Communism is similarly supposed to be an improvement on capitalism. Here, the idea is that centralised planning can improve the distribution of the produced goods (and further improve the quantity and diversity of goods).
I would argue capitalism is bad in nature, but people confuse free markets as being inherit to capitalism, which it is not.
Capitalism at its core is about ownership, in that those with money own a thing and thus make the decisions. This results in an Oligarchy controlling the market.
Communism in contrast is about collective ownership in that those that produce, own and make the decisions. However in practice, that ownership get usurped by “the state” which basically translates to an oligarchy through control of the market.
This is why I like the term, free market socialism. Ownership should be held by the producers, but the state should not control the market. The role of government in the market should be limited to monopoly prevention.
The state ownership of production is deliberate, and aimed at improving efficiency and allowing forward planning. One (or a few, if you want competition) large factory is more efficient than a bunch of smaller workshops. State ownership can lead to corruption, as you pointed out, but it is a conscious choice and not happenstance.
I would argue that state facilitation is superior to state control.
A small government that does not interfere with the initiative of individuals and groups.
You don’t need central control and orchistration when you have our level of communication technology. That’s only required when your communication channels are limited.
The state at national level should be limited to providing facilitation, infrastructure, defence and foreign policy. Independent Local governments should provide the bulk of public services.
I trust collective decision making a lot more than central decision making for optimising a system.
State ownership has both advantages and disadvantages; I just wanted to point out that it was a deliberate choice.
The state at national level should be limited to providing facilitation, infrastructure, defence and foreign policy. Independent Local governments should provide the bulk of public services.
What do you do when some regions are poorer than others, or one gets hit by a natural disaster? Again, it isn’t black and white. There are advantages to both centralisation and devolution.
I agree never a one size fits all situation. I do not have much confidence in central planning, since that has the longest track record in failure. Both in governments and in corporations.
A natural disaster would be handled by regional or national disaster response agencies. Much like it is now in western countries.
Regarding wealth or resource imbalance between poorer and richer areas, this is where I think the current status quo is the problem. Since after the industrial revolution, the high productivity of cities has been subsidizing the wealth of the suburbs and rural areas to the significant detriment of overall productivity.
We need to rethink the infrastructure standards outside of cities. Right now the suburb sprawl of single homes with large yards, malls and massive parking lots and roads are utterly unsustainable.
Its are hampering the productive capacity, food quality and security provided by rural land. What this looks like is a lot like older european villages. People live relatively densely surrounded by farmland and pasture. Car ownership is low since you can walk or bike anywhere, or there is a tram or bus to where you need to go. I would also point out that much of this infrastructure was developed and maintained locally with little to no central government.
Once you stop the subsidization and change the role to be something more sustainable, you will find that the wealth and productive density per person will balance according to the inherit environmental factors to a much larger degree.
I also want to highlight is that a lack of central control and planning does not prevent collaboration and coordination from occuring between entities. Our modern communication technology makes this possible to a degree that the founders of socialism and communism could never have anticipated.
Much like industrialization has changed the world order, the communication revolution has done the same. The political and economic sciences are still playing catchup.
Imma need some context. Searching “cowbee” gave me nothing.
Cowbee is a prominent user on Lemmy who is a communist and frequently picks apart anti-communist comments.
Gotcha, I’m terrible with names.
Rather overly optimistic communist at that. Told me to study up on communist theory without ever engaging with my best points. Talks a lot, says very little.
Well? Did you study up in communist theory, or are you content always getting dunked on?
Also, please link us the thread where Cowbee “ignored your best points” so we can take a look at it. I’m curious to see what you’re talking about. I suspect you’re lying.
Edit: https://lemmy.world/comment/23871382
Sigh, Cowbee painstakingly engaged with you, displayed patience and empathy and kindness, and this is the route you went. Reading your comments, you’re completely and utterly clueless. You would do well to stop throwing mud at people who take time to help you parse your scattered “ideology” and instead do some reading and shut the fuck up.
As stated earlier, my best points were essentially ignored. If that’s what ‘getting dunked on’ means, I’m beyond fine with it lol
I don’t know how this is mud throwing when he describes himself as an optimist and at the same time was the ‘clueless one’ on what a moderately conservative communist stands for.
I love your take though, especially the ‘parse your scattered ideology’ bit, that was hilarious. I believe Cowbee has been clued in on my perspective despite my own cluelessness haha
Thank you for linking the comment thread for me.
I read through your thread with Cowbee that chloroken had listed and am still confused what you mean by a moderately conservative communist. Can you elaborate why you choose to describe a communist, essentially a person who wants to bring change, as conservative, which means to oppose change?
The thread already highlights this, but the target of the change dictates the label.
You are assuming capitalism is the steady baseline and communism is the disruption. But in reality, global capital is the true revolutionary force. It constantly tears apart the planet, destroying ecosystems just to keep expanding. It is insanely radical.
So if capital is the radical disruption, then what does it mean to be a conservative? ‘oppose change’ certainly doesn’t cover it or much of anything at all. It means you want to conserve the basic conditions of life against this chaos. I am a communist because it takes a radical break to stop capital, but I am a conservative because the whole point is to defend the physical world from its destructive progress. Communist means, conservative ends.
I feel like your true definition of ‘change’ means ‘movement toward liberation’ if you could only be more specific. If a train is heading towards a cliff, hitting the brakes is conservative in the literal sense, but it is also the only sane and radical thing to do. You need a revolutionary tool (communism) to apply the brakes, but the goal is ultimately conservative (keeping the train from crashing).
Conservative doesn’t mean what you think it does. Conservative means not changing the state at all. Capitalism is the status quo. Communism is something new, something untried, that resolves to break the status quo. Conserving the environment means to stop whatever actions we are doing to change it. Usually people mean stopping the destructive actions towards the environment, so it has eventually come to mean saving the environment/biodiversity, etc. That still doesn’t change the meaning of the word conservative, which means upholding the prevailing state of things.
Using your example, letting the train run is conservative, and hitting the brakes to stop it (changing the state) is radical.
Your mistake is treating capitalism as a static “status quo.” It isn’t. Capitalism is a dynamic process of constant, disruptive revolution. It actively destroys the ecological status quo every single day. So if “conservative” means upholding the prevailing state of things, then defending the physical world against capitalist expansion is conservative. You have to radically change the economy just to conserve the environment.
The train analogy only proves my point. If a train is accelerating toward a cliff, letting it run preserves the engine’s current operation, but it radically destroys the train. Hitting the brakes disrupts the engine’s operation in order to conserve the train. I want to disrupt the capitalist engine to conserve the physical world. Communist means, conservative ends.
I think you might have some things to work on. I wish you well on the journey of self discovery
Yes and I suspect you too may be a sentient life-force. Stay safe
He thoroughly broke down your points, you just refused to agree.
You mean they dump copy-pasta fan-fiction about AES everywhere.
You literally supported Rhodesia.
You don’t get to make moral arguments that anyone takes seriously and you sure don’t get to criticize others arguments. Yours led you to support Rhodesia.
Holy shit? There are Rhodesia apologists on Lemmy?
Lol, you continue to make up funny stories that have nothing to do with reality. I never “supported Rhodesia”.
you do support the fascist regime in Ukraine tho, or gonna pretend that’s also a funny story fash?
I don’t support any government, but I recognize the right of the Ukranian people to defend themselves against imperial aggression.
And you specifically should be very careful about calling other people “fash” given your long history of supporting authoritarian state-capitalist regimes or worse.
Oh, but you do support a government in tangible terms because you support the war the regime is fighting and the atrocities it commits against its people. The regime literally kidnaps people off the street and forces them into fighting. You’ve openly stated many times that you support continuation of the war and that you stand on the side of a openly fascist regime. That makes you a fascist.
Also, imagine being over the age of 13 and using terms like authoritarian. 🤡
The term authoritarianism is utterly meaningless because all governments rely on coercion to maintain their authority. The state is fundamentally an instrument that’s used by the ruling class to maintain its dominance. The whole notion that political systems can be neatly categorized into authoritarian or democratic binaries is deeply infantile.
The reality is that every government derives its authority from its monopoly on legal violence. The ability to enforce laws, suppress dissent, and maintain order is derived from control over police, military, and judicial systems. Whether a government is labelled authoritarian or democratic, the fundamental basis of its power lies here. Therefore, the only meaningful questions to ask are which class interests it represents, and to what extent can it be held accountable to them.
What ultimately matters is which class controls the institutions of state violence. In capitalist democracies, the government represent the interests of the economic elites who fund political campaigns, own media outlets, and control key industries. Western public lacks the mechanisms necessary to hold the government to account, and the ruling class is disconnected from the broader population. That’s precisely what’s driving political discontent all across western sphere today. Meanwhile, in so-called authoritarian regimes, the ruling party serves the working class as seen in countries like China, Cuba, or Vietnam. Hence why there is widespread public trust in these government and they enjoy broad support from the masses.
To add to that, the whole idea of state capitalism is a misnomer. It basically says that while you have state owned enterprise, the internal capitalist relations within it remain largely the same. While that’s true, there is a fundamental difference here. Capitalism is a system where people who own capital hire workers to exploit there labor with the purpose of increasing their capital. The goal of capitalist enterprise is to create wealth for the owners with any social benefits being strictly incidental. On the other hand, the purpose of state enterprise is to provide social value. Workers in state owned companies are producing things that the society needs. They are working for their own benefit and those of others around them. Therefore, the nature of work itself is fundamentally different from actual capitalism.
I guess I shouldn’t be expecting much from somebody who equates a socialist state where means of production are publicly owned with fascism.
Nice, another copy-pasta fan-fiction from someone that needs to read more theory 😏
Dictionary: libspeak to english
The Ukranian people want an end to the war, and it’s only the US imperial puppet regime the live under that has decided to aggressively kidnap them into vans at gunpoint instead.
Full support to the brave Ukranians who kill draft officers.
go home fash
Communism by itself isn’t bad, nor is capitalism, but both assume that their proponents are immune to greed, and that their opponent are full of it.
There are good things in both, bad things in both. The problem is to find people that are truly altruistic, and that have the moral fortitude to stay altruistic.
Edit: y’all can downvote all you want, I’ll stand by my opinion unless someone has the honesty to argue on that.
Heavily disagree, friend. Capitalism by itself is bad. It may have good things, but that hardly justifies the inhuman and cruel roots it stands on. Capitalism does not assume that its proponents should be free of greed, it wants them to be greedy. Why the hell would you want to keep expanding your money if not for greed? Capitalism runs on this principle of self expanding value and inequal exchanges. It strives for profit, nothing else. I haven’t studied communism well enough, but communism doesn’t assume it’s proponents to be immune to greed, it dismantles the institutions by which greed operates(money, class, and state).
Can you list the good parts of capitalism? If you say the free market, capitalism doesn’t have a monopoly on that concept. Socialism and communism have free market aspects too, but they centralize control of resources so that 5 people can’t drain everything and ascend to the top.
Both having a form of free market doesn’t make it suddenly good for one side and bad for the other.
Some sort of free market is good, so new idea can brew, some of them being one day attempted, other won’t because it ends up either not getting traction, or would very obviously fail after some research.
Problem is with too much planning is that it doesn’t give as much place for innovation, as well as put too much weight on a single point of failure. That played a good part in the USSR famines, like the holodomor, which was then further aggravated by their unwillingness to admit they fucked up, blaming it on other factors. But if they had learned from their mistakes, it would have improved, but unfortunately those very same error were repeated multiple time (see the multiple famines the USSR faced while strangely their western counterparts did not).
And I’ll pass on the other similar failures (Chernobyl, among other), that follow the very same pattern.
Of course, the USSR had some very clear wins, like the first part of the race to space, and others.
The USSR could have been a success if their leader weren’t selfish idiots, which os a shame since I’d rather live in a good cummunism regime than a good capitalism regime.
I always worked toward such ideals, I contributed to some open-source project (Gnome, KDE, mostly translation, bug report, but also some packaging for OpenSUSE and Fedora.
I’m a bit tired of those who blindly follow ideologies without having the intellectual honesty to recognize where said ideology fucked up and where it was great. Do I have to be called a social-traitor for every reflection on communism or socialism? I doubt Marx would be happy to see those he tried to enlighten sheepishly follow whoever yell the loudest… Even if they yell parta of what he tried to teach them.
What other famine after holodomor? I can only think of one but was during siege from the nazis.
And that’s only those who were big enough to be impossible to hide completely.
All of them have something in common: the central government minimised them, and tried to hide them. Some weren’t even acknowledged until after the USSR fall. All of them are a combination of bad luck (war, drought) combined with hasty decisions which made what could have been a hard year a generational disaster.
All have something in common: The capitalist core ignored people, caused wars or restricted economic at their periphery and let millions them die.
The death toll by the capitalist empires are way higher and going way more recent in history.
Which comes back to my main argument: both have failed, so either both are bad, or we have a people problem instead of a system problem.
Read Marx
Already done, lot a good ideas, some ideas I don’t agree with, but an enlightening read nonetheless.
The part I disagree the most about are free competition.
I promise you that we all know you haven’t read Marxist works. No need to lie.
That was part of my philosophy class, the book is probably still at my father house.
You still believe in human nature detached from material conditions, which is an idealist position. There’s nothing convincing anyone can say to you until you challenge this position.
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
And he wants someone to “honestly argue with him” LMAO.
Neither capitalism nor communism assume that their proponents are immune to greed. Capitalism was developed as an improvement over (European) feudalism and mercantilism. The idea is that division of labour expands the quantity and diversity of goods that can be produced. Communism is similarly supposed to be an improvement on capitalism. Here, the idea is that centralised planning can improve the distribution of the produced goods (and further improve the quantity and diversity of goods).
I would argue capitalism is bad in nature, but people confuse free markets as being inherit to capitalism, which it is not.
Capitalism at its core is about ownership, in that those with money own a thing and thus make the decisions. This results in an Oligarchy controlling the market.
Communism in contrast is about collective ownership in that those that produce, own and make the decisions. However in practice, that ownership get usurped by “the state” which basically translates to an oligarchy through control of the market.
This is why I like the term, free market socialism. Ownership should be held by the producers, but the state should not control the market. The role of government in the market should be limited to monopoly prevention.
The state ownership of production is deliberate, and aimed at improving efficiency and allowing forward planning. One (or a few, if you want competition) large factory is more efficient than a bunch of smaller workshops. State ownership can lead to corruption, as you pointed out, but it is a conscious choice and not happenstance.
I would argue that state facilitation is superior to state control.
A small government that does not interfere with the initiative of individuals and groups.
You don’t need central control and orchistration when you have our level of communication technology. That’s only required when your communication channels are limited.
The state at national level should be limited to providing facilitation, infrastructure, defence and foreign policy. Independent Local governments should provide the bulk of public services.
I trust collective decision making a lot more than central decision making for optimising a system.
State ownership has both advantages and disadvantages; I just wanted to point out that it was a deliberate choice.
What do you do when some regions are poorer than others, or one gets hit by a natural disaster? Again, it isn’t black and white. There are advantages to both centralisation and devolution.
I agree never a one size fits all situation. I do not have much confidence in central planning, since that has the longest track record in failure. Both in governments and in corporations.
A natural disaster would be handled by regional or national disaster response agencies. Much like it is now in western countries.
Regarding wealth or resource imbalance between poorer and richer areas, this is where I think the current status quo is the problem. Since after the industrial revolution, the high productivity of cities has been subsidizing the wealth of the suburbs and rural areas to the significant detriment of overall productivity.
We need to rethink the infrastructure standards outside of cities. Right now the suburb sprawl of single homes with large yards, malls and massive parking lots and roads are utterly unsustainable.
Its are hampering the productive capacity, food quality and security provided by rural land. What this looks like is a lot like older european villages. People live relatively densely surrounded by farmland and pasture. Car ownership is low since you can walk or bike anywhere, or there is a tram or bus to where you need to go. I would also point out that much of this infrastructure was developed and maintained locally with little to no central government.
Once you stop the subsidization and change the role to be something more sustainable, you will find that the wealth and productive density per person will balance according to the inherit environmental factors to a much larger degree.
I also want to highlight is that a lack of central control and planning does not prevent collaboration and coordination from occuring between entities. Our modern communication technology makes this possible to a degree that the founders of socialism and communism could never have anticipated.
Much like industrialization has changed the world order, the communication revolution has done the same. The political and economic sciences are still playing catchup.