Protestation
Protestation
22 comments
-
-
The problem with non-free-market economic systems is if the person or group controlling the resources doesn’t like you, you die.
-
Whereas no one has ever died because they couldn't obtain resources from the market. 🙄
-
When we compare free markets to centralized control systems, pretty much all the starvation has happened under centralized control systems.
The reason for this is that under a free market, nothing is more profitable than providing things people desperately need.
-
Whereas no one has ever died because they couldn't obtain resources from the party. 🙄
-
-
There doesn't exist a thing as a "free market economy" on a large scale. It's an impossibility. Attempts at pure capitalism converge to diet fascism. But even if this hypothetical free market were to exist, it inevitably becomes a system where a small minority of people control the many. It's a system that all but guarantees a wealth gap divide and generational wealth. It's a system where the more capital you have, the more voting power you have ("vote with your dollar" is a capitalist phrase for a reason). It's a system where resources are distributed based on capital, and capital is a resource, and obviously more resources allows you to generate more capital – do you see the problem here? Over time, most of the power accumulates in the hands of a few.
Despite the forum we're on, I'm definitely not a Marxist-Leninist (nor a follower of any variation of highly authoritarian leftism or socially conservative leftism) and probably wouldn't be described as a "communist" – it does get fuzzy there though since in a hypothetical unified or post-scarcity world I would want communism... Regardless of the terminology, surely you agree with me that attempting a "free market capitalist" economy is a very bad idea, and at minimum you need a well-regulated mixed economy to function?
-
Not who you replied to, and you're free to ignore this comment, but I wanted to poke at something you wrote.
Despite the forum we're on, I'm definitely not a Marxist-Leninist (nor a follower of any variation of highly authoritarian leftism or socially conservative leftism) and probably wouldn't be described as a "communist" – it does get fuzzy there though since in a hypothetical unified or post-scarcity world I would want communism...
There are no significant numbers of socially conservative Communists on Lemmy (ie patsocs, MAGA Communists, and other far-right coopting of Marxism). Tossing that aside, we are left with your idealized goal of Communism, ie a society that satisfies the needs of the whole with the products of the whole via central planning, but no stated path to actually get there. If there isn't a plan, then it ceases to be a goal, and instead becomes a dream.
My question is this: what do you believe Marxists want, and what makes them "authoritarian?" Is there a line in the sand between democratic and authoritarian? What about the Marxist stated plan is authoritarian, specifically? I think there's some underlying bias here that I want to challenge just a bit, if you'll entertain me.
-
-
If you mean that private ownership is any more free, you're wrong.
-
Yeah, try living off SSI or the average SSDI payment and try saying that with a straight face.
22 comments
The problem is that leverage applies more than exchange of value.