• Someonelol@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    5 hours ago

    Communist centrally planned economies suck. That’s how you end up with panicking factory and farm managers exaggerating their production to the state to not end up in the gulag. A better alternative could be petitioning the government for money to start a worker-owned co-op that produce things at quantities that people would actually want. Do that and keep the government democratic composed of different parties with socialist mindsets at their heart and things should be better for all without the baggage of authoritarianism.

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Central planning has been remarkably effective at achieving economic growth while directing production and distribution to satisfy the needs of the many. The USSR and PRC are examples of some of the fastest growing economies in the world, and are both responsible for the largest eradications of poverty in history.

      Cooperatives are cool in the context of capitalism, or early stages of socialism (they are prominent in the PRC currently). However, as they grow, the profit motive forces enshittification and predatory practices, which is why producing for the purposes of needs over profits is superior.

      As for multi-party systems, it’s generally better to practice unity and avoid factionalism and splitting. Western democracy is notoriously terrible at providing a cohesive system supported by the many, while socialist democracies like the PRC are supported by over 90% of the population.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Communist centrally planned economies suck.

      Oh, hey. I know this one. It’s the reason we’re not allowed to do anything about Climate Change.

      Imagine what will happen if a President Elizabeth Warren bans fracking in places like Texas, North Dakota, Ohio, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania; in Texas alone, by some estimates, 1 million jobs would be lost. Overall, according to a Chamber of Commerce report, a full ban would cost 14 million jobs—far more than the 8 million lost in the Great Recession. And the environment itself would be somewhat of a loser in this game—natural gas has done more to reduce emissions than all the greens’ efforts.

      Across the world, green-backed policies have hurt the working class far more than the affluent rich who most enthusiastically embrace them. The militant Extinction Rebellion—which the online magazine Spiked has described as “an upper-middle-class death cult”—has tried to disrupt commuters in Britain in their drive to “save the planet” but has earned more angry contempt than support from harried workers. Though cast by the media as heroic outsiders, greens have historically clustered in elite academic, nonprofit, media, and corporate sectors. The influential Limits to Growth, published in 1972 by the Club of Rome, was backed by major corporate interests, led by Fiat’s Aurelio Peccei. The authors’ long-term vision, based on the notion that the planet was running out of resources at a rapid rate, was to create “a carefully controlled balance” that would restrict growth, particularly in advanced countries.

      We aren’t allowed to plan anything. We aren’t allowed to regulate anything. We aren’t allowed to prosecute anyone above a certain income level. We aren’t allowed to unionize or collectively bargin, especially if we’re public employees. We’re not even allowed to directly vote for the office of the Presidency, because that’s Populism and we all know what happens when popularly elected governments start managing their own economic future.

      A better alternative could be petitioning the government for money

      Ah yes. Just ask your team of highly placed lobbyists to get Free Money From The Government to privatize the profits and socialize the costs. When has that ever gone wrong?