Not to mention that the philosophical justification for communism isn't even valid. Marxist communism relies on the Labor Theory of Value to reason that profit is inherently exploitative, but it's a thoroughly discredited theory. The value of any commodity is subjective.
Plus you know how he just plays words games OH THE CAPITALIST HIRES FOR 10 HOURS AND OVERWORKS THEM FOR 12 HOURS AND THEN KEEPS THE VALUE OF THE EXTRA HOURS FOR HIMSELF!! EXPLOITION! COMMUNISM NOW! Moron.
“Capitalism is not convergent but divergent.” Umm, kind of. It’s technically oscillatory, with very catastrophic collapses. When things become too divergent there’s a convergence event (wealth collapses). Then things diverge, and subsequently collapse.
And it started with a guy describing utopian family as an example of what communism was supposed to be as non-utopian ;) The fact it is utopian even on a scale of one family, imagine how utopian it is to try to implement it into billions-sized society.
Two thousand years ago all relatively “developed” places had slaves they tortured and coerced. And areas where they hunted for people to reduce to that. And that was the family, the tribe, the state, the empire etc... Now, we have a lot less of that. And have developed a natural disdain that not even being de-sensitized can overturn. I don’t think there is anything utopian in spotting long-term patterns. Its dumb to think we’ll start going backwards, long-term.
@@toby8814 Being cruel to each other doesn't require slave-master relation. We have less slaves, but being in the internet for quite some time now I would argue we are not really stepping down on cruelty. By the way, slavery is based on a premise that "they" are not the same as "we", less worthy. This imo hasn't changed a bit. There are always "we" and "they" in e v e r y t h i n g. Families, companies, nations, sports, sexes, tall people, short people, you name it. Communism assumes certain equalities that are not achievable due to differences in capabilities of each human entity. Going backwards or not, depends on a region of the Earth you talk about because, believe me, there are regions where you could walk freely some years ago and now you won't even get killed for free ;) 1st world countries outsource their trash to places no one talks about and we think we live in peaceful world. Rome was rather peaceful power in it's core regions, while they were slaughtering bordering nations for expansion. That kind of resembles what's today, it's just borders are a bit differently perceived and methods are more clever so it feels just. Many things changed, well, apart from human nature. We are the same greedy, self-centered animals we've been thousands years ago. Communism may succeed only when some filthy rich capitalistic pig finds more profit from it succeeding rather than from some beautiful human evolution. It is always about "me", the leader, the one who brought new order, the one on all those statues, in all history books. This is not how you drive revolution of equals. This is why it will never happen. That ofc doesn't mean tons of people won't lay sacrificed on the altar of hopes and delusions. I drifted a bit. Cheers.
@@Lesminster Nah man I like the logic. I wasn’t defending communism by the way. Surely, your first intuition that the current state of media = dissolution of morals is true. Not because media is immoral, but because where there is no emotion there is no compulsion to do whats right. And with everything getting exacerbated with how media (and all industry) grows limitlessly in search of profit and more. Thats systemic though if you ask me. Its not just the species. Its the materialist aspects of the species getting exacerbated on a scale like never before. Divisions like that you mentioned also get overused for personal nowadays the same way. Since personal gain is now more than ever the core of our society. Thats not to say there isn’t some truth to basic stuff and we should all completely transcend humanity. My disagreement is that humans are just that. A bunch of idiots that want more and more, and are Just greedy, Just status-driven, Just sectarian, Just prone to eating the world dry to the bone to feel better for a bit. I think thats just easier though. Or we think its easier. I don’t think anyone, in their heart, thinks they will ever be satisfied with that. And theres aspects of our humanity that make us more prone than any other animal to seek the other opposite. Whether you find that in religion, scientific knowledge, spirituality or just simplicity and lack of expectations. We are the most adaptable species. The only species on this planet with science, philosophy, spirituality and deeply ingrained understanding of that sort. And maybe the only species that understands that eating at the world indefinitely and isn’t happiness. And socioeconomic/tribal superiority over another isn’t either. And in a way, I think this more of everything is sharpening people to understand that better gradually.
Its all about execution! We all know nothing is perfect, why are we still insisting on searching for one perfect ideology? Take the best from both ideas and continously seeking improvement.
Just this notion that you fly frequently (no matter what is price category of tickets) is sign of wealthy individual and wealthy society. There are no such definition of poverty in Namibia and Cuba.
@@tashhashimi9483 EXACTLY!!?!?!?? People are so jaded these days it's unbelievable. Equating flying economy to torture is insane in jest or not, and saying you're not middle class if you fly as such is equally insane. They used to call it 1st class for a reason. Even as business class the idea is one is for the upper class and the other is for the middle class. Many if not most of the lower class aren't taking flights much as it is. Shit I can't afford to go on vacation. My family never really did and we've always been on the edge of the middle to lower classes.
The advantage of Christianity over Communism, is that even though we look forward to a state where we have "the good things without the bad things", we still have a mechanism (forgiveness) to deal with the bad things in a world and with people that we expect to be "fallen" (imperfect).
@@crypto_kyle yeah, that was four months back. Now let's ask him to bring someone like Not just bike, or Adam something (fierce critic of Elon on transportation) or any professional from 'strong town' to discuss transportation.
Look up production possibilities curve (ppc). It makes sense. No matter how much of a thing is produced, some people will have an excess and some people will be deprived and this is pretty standard intro economics.
Example: "Quants". Math and Physics Ph.Ds who spend their time working on models to predict stock prices, making money for the big banks. They get more for this than, say, working to perfect fusion power, develop AI, develop ways to control that AI, etc. What benefits us more down the road, better proprietary models to predict the stock market, or working fusion power, controllabe AI, improved nanotechnology, etc.?
@@nedames3328 This sounds suspiciously like an, Other people are not doing what I want them to do argument. Or, if I was the economic dictator I could do things much better.
@@mustang607 Sounds like. Perhaps. The question remains: in the long run which use of resources (highly trained STEM people) leaves the average person better off? By your argument: "Who are you to judge?" no non-coercive economic system can misallocate resources. You might want to rethink that one.
The intellectual domain of JBP and Joscha Bach shares a really close kinship with one another. I doubt either would 'blow' each other's mind, but I'm sure we can all agree that their conversation would be legendary nevertheless.
@@Lk_boca I think Joscha Bach is much smarter than JP. I think there's overlap with regards to his critique of historical communism and post-modernism, but it's not clear to me that Bach takes those critiques as necessarily confirming JP's defense of current power structures. In particular I'd say the extent to which JP defends current power-structures takes on a very reactionary character since he in particular defends traditional morality and current power structures to the extent that they inherent a certain traditional morality that was more dominant in the discourse few decades ago. I don't see that with Bach. Joscha argues that the reason communism fails is because it replaces economic coercion under capitalism with a moral/social coercion. Joscha's notion of creating self stabilizing systems could in fact I think be used to justify a form anarchism. Though, if like JP, Bach believes that hierarchies are so natural to human nature that fighting against most of them is a bad idea, then that refutes my claim that he's potentially arguing for anarchism. I simply don't know what Bach thinks about that and I personally hope he doesn't fall for the same naturalistic fallacy as JP. I'd be willing to guess that Bach does believe capitalism is preferable system relative to anything else we've seen historically, but honestly his views are nuanced and complicated enough that I don't think I can reduce any of what he says to a flat out defense of capitalism and I think there's room for the listener to hear what they want to hear as opposed to what he's actually saying. JP on the other hand would be more explicit in his defense of capitalism.
@Sir Sleepy There's a sense in which hierarchies are natural, but there's also, to give a blunt example, a sense in which murder is natural. That is to say, just because hierarchies are inevitable, that doesn't mean it's necessarily right to strive to protect them. To say something is good because it appears in nature - or at least to defend something as being necessary just because it exists in nature falls under the naturalistic fallacy. And my interpretation is that JP not only thinks hierarchies are inevitable but that they are essential to keep people, especially men, behaving themselves. And by extension he also upholds the Judeo-Christian God as being one mechanism to enforce this hierarchy. Though to me that latter part ignores the fact plenty of societies are organized by more animist religious principles or religions that don't even put an emphasis on gods, such as Taoism and Buddhism. So I think there's a sense which he's also narrowminded with his cultural biases. Moreover, if I really dig into JP's arguments I think we can also find plenty of hierarchies in human societies that not only are bad but also don't exist in nature. Of course, JP would agree with me on this as well, and he's made a point of being against authoritarianism, but I'd go a step further and say religions as practiced in a lot of Christian and Muslim countries are also unnatural hierarchies or that nation states in general are unnatural hierarchies that don't have to emerge from whatever tendency towards hierarchy might exist in human nature - where even if humans are really hierarchical in nature, I don't think that's a quality we should embrace. And in reality, on a small scale, we see lots of interesting ways in which humans have organized themselves across history that isn't just traditional monarchies that necessarily evolve into republics we have today. I have to of course leave a footnote to mention that what is "natural" and "unnatural" can also be hard to pin down. I can point to certain things being natural given the way humans didn't evolve to live in massive cities, but they do anyway, and our nature causes us to behave weirdly in those artificially constructed contexts. Although My definitions aren't perfect, I hope you at least se what I'm getting at with all this. If I really want to summarize everything, I think JP's philosophy is just standard reactionary conservatives in the veneer of philosophical language so I don't actually have a lot of nice things to say about it.
"If you are still flying economy, you are not middle class" You could also say, "If you are not a manager (literally 'bourgeois'), you are not middle class". It's very silly and quite European, (Continental, particularly) setting meaningless boundaries like this. The American rule of thumb is, if you have equity in your house and a retirement account of some kind (you own stock), you are Middle Class. The fact that the American system produced a majority of people who fall into this category is a testament to how far superior it is to the European system. "You will own nothing, and you will be heppy". I'm not sure I know anyone who wants to be 'heppy'. I'm not even sure what it means, to 'be heppy'.
That’s a pretty dumb indicator of middle class. We’re probably in the top few percent and we always fly economy. That few hours of discomfort allows you to have a nicer time at your destination.
Damn then he goes and says capitalism misallocates resources. Individuals misallocate resources and pay the price with a financial loss. An entrepreneur that fails has misallocated resources, not sure how capitalism did that.
Communism (Marxism) fails because it gets outcompeted (i.e., it's worse than capitalism), it doesn't scale, and it is full of contradictions. Communism doesn't exist in capitalist countries because it gets outcompeted. Capitalism doesn't exist in communist countries because communism requires absolute conformity. Put another way, the only capitalism found in a communist country is a black market, though there tends to be a lot of them. If communism were anywhere close to better than capitalism, it would be ubiquitous; instead it tends to only be found in academia and similar ivory towers. Meanwhile, (would-be) communist countries today are completely reliant on the advancements of capitalist countries to sustain anything close to the standard of living found in the West. An extension of this is that communism doesn't scale. Communism, of any significant size, requires mass and uniform adoption, usually via violent revolution and oppression, to try to sustain itself. Simply put, if an idea doesn't excel at increasing degrees of the micro, it doesn't deserve adoption on the macro. If you think communism has excelled at some point, I suggest you read more history and also refer to the previous paragraph. Would-be communist countries today would be 50 or more years behind if it weren't for the advancements of the capitalist world, and many of them still are (e.g., Cuba and Laos). The only exceptions to this rule are those like China that have "temporarily" adopted a hybrid economy for the sake of being able to feed its own people, though ideologically they have every intention of reverting to communism after beating the West. As for contradictions, I could go on all day if I thought long enough, but a few are 1) The requirement of a temporary state to dictate the economy's direction that is supposed to spontaneously dissolve when the communism reaches cruising altitude. 2) An arbitrary definition and goal for sufficient capitalist material abundance, from which the communist revolution is meant to flourish and multiply by reallocating everything "fairly." As you can tell by the nature of communist advancement since its heyday in the 20th century, communism can easily spoil abundance, or maybe it just wasn't abundant enough; which begs the question, is there ever really such a time of sufficient material abundance, and what does it say that communism admits to relying on this initial capitalist ("immorally produced") abundance? These are contradictions because they contradict what communism is trying to achieve and rely on altruistic human nature; hence why when power is consolidated "temporarily", it never is temporary; or why "now" is always the right time for a wide-scale communist revolution, until it fails, in which case " *They* didn't do it right. I would have..."
Fly on any Chinese airline, and economy, as well as business or first class, is torture. Horrid customer service, shit food, and you can’t use any electronic device the ENTIRE flight.
Communism is Impractical for exactly the same reason that Libertarianism is impractical... We, as a species, are not good enough to live under such an arrangement. To be sure, a few individuals are capable of thriving under such conditions. But most would degenerate either system by self-centeredness and avarice. We are born into this world as communist... "From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs". But the nuclear family thrives on trust. Trust that's impossible to scale up to the National level.
What if the core of communism was more resentment about those how have more be it because they are corrupt, smart or hard working. You punish all of these and reward those who are corrupt, dumb and lazy at work and bring the whole society in the same boat. The problem too is the lack of hierarchy, having one system where the whole can sink if a few don't do their job instead of personal responsibility, family responsibility, community, city and so on.
We can coexist, coordinate and thrive on an entire global scale. Capitalism, with its rapid development of productive and communication technology in the past 300 years, has laid the material basis for such large scale cooperative society, free of exploitation of man by man. Communism is nothing but the next logical stage of the historical development of human societies, which evolve mainly on the basis of interactions between forces and relations of production. It's true the Russian Revolution degenerated, but communism can't be built in one country, especially a country that inherited such backwardness as Russia did. Communism is international or it's nothing. The German Revolutions of 1918 and 1923 needed to succeed in order for Russian Revolution to not be taken over by careerists and bureaucrats.
I like the garden analogy. Healthy balance, with competition. Steinbeck, in "Log of the Sea of Cortez", posed this same point, when observing that where life was difficult, competitive (lots of fish), then the ecosystem was healthy. Where no competition, weakness. My perspective - look at how India was so easily toppled by the British. Or the Mayans, Incans crushed by a few hundred conquistadors. Yeah, I get the guns, germs & steel, read the book, and yet.. inherently, a weak system. Even the conquistadors were astonished at how easily these corrupt systems collapsed. Contrast that with Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea.
Communism fails because it rewards selfishness. Capitalism succeeds because it rewards helping others. Rewarding helpful behavior and letting those most knowledgeable of their needs decide what is helpful is an optimal system.
Your economic "class" is determined by how much money you make and you could also include the cost of living for where you live as a factor. What you do with your income is your choice, as miss-allocating resources is a personal problem.
It’s also determined by the kind of job you have (manual labour, etc). Also wages have not kept up with productivity and have been flat for 30 years when you adjust for inflation. It’s not just “stupid ppl.” Neoliberal policies have prioritized the well-being of elite institutions at the expense of working people.
@@TheInternationalist I would relate your type of job to your social class. Someone working a pipeline for over $100K/year will be in the same economic class with others earning 6 figures, but socially literate with other blue collar types. Of course the inflation problems we have now are going to push everyone "under $300K" as bloomberg says, down a notch. Our ruling class has absolutely destroyed middle class prosperity. Make the 99% equally poor seems to be the direction we're headed
5:53 In my opinion there is a fubdamental flaw in his argument. "miss alocating" resources is a subjetive term here, if a rich guy wants to invest more into a new proyect instead of rising the existing salaries, the cureent employes migth remain poor, but with the new proyect, NEW jobs are created, including more people to the system. Eventually the increasing productivity will lead to cheaper goods and services, and the cycle will growth virtuosly.
True, but there is an inevitable cyclical collapse that system. Capitalism is good and all but it does not seem to reach a steady state and stay there, it seems to like exploding like a supernova every couple of decades.
@@acadianalien like all systems in nature. First, if you are going to inovate, let people be free to explore new ways of living better, of course will be failures, recesión etc, but from all those failures will be success that move the society forward. If you are not failing, you are not trying to live better. Second you can live perfectly well in a unestable system, by having savings( buffers) but people are not educated to do so. And the less buffered are the diferent parts of the economy, the less it can contain local failures and avoid them to propagate and become collapses. Third, the recurrent collapses in capitalism like the great depresion or 2008, are because the state pretty much intervine with stimulus and applied socialism policies like giving away credits, etc,
@@acadianalien Crisis are caused by governments and central banks, in real or full capitalism (not what we have now cause we still regulate the market) a specific sector may enter into crisis, for example agriculture, but never society completely. The only problem y think capitalism may have is that it works too well and we should think of how to make it sustainable given the limited resources the planet has.
@@s3rz324 Banks and government obviously make it worse, but I still think that Capitalism is fundamentally unstable. No matter what we do, capital always accumulates to fewer and fewer people. I think it is an amazing system that lifts many people out of poverty, but it will never reach a stable equilibrium like we want it to. It is similar to entropy in some ways.
@@s3rz324 Capitalism only works well for certain things. But capitalism is too short term and only looks at profits at the expense of many people. Capitalism is efficient but not everything must be run efficiently some things like hospitals, the utilities and transportation you need redundancy built in.
an equal but productive society is an issue of allocation of resources and tasks. to uphold each individuals interests, I think this becomes an issue of computation (one set of data for each idividual). once ai does superhuman intelligence I think we might be best off to create an AI system maximizing induvidual happiness and economic growth. this AI will then stabilize our societal and economic system.
@@jimbodimbo981 there's going to be AI overlords anyway, might at least make sure they uphold our personal interests instead of letting bussinesses and 3-letter-agencies grow AI into economic and political control machines.
Has anyone ever noticed how in flocks, packs, & crowds, when one individual in said groups finds sustenance how all the others try to take it away from them?
@@diogenes5381 I don't think there's much of a difference. Needs are needs, some are stronger but they all serve the purpose of survival, and when you don't have them you're hungry for them
Guy was very logical imo. Usually you get people talking about "communism's death toll" and mention stuff like famine from grain requisition or any of these dynamics (which were terrible situations which we often don't understand why it happened - rapid industrialization because profit-incentivized war was likely) you never get someone making them think of all the situations that are a direct consequence of capitalism. Or just a degenerated boundless profit-incentive market system with vast accumulation of resources, and its death toll. Which is a death toll just like that which happened under the communist ideology - be it the famines, torture, mass deportations, genocide because acquiring natives' land was profitable. You name it. To someone living in any capitalist third world nation, or nation with natural resources and foreign military presence, or impoverished area where kids kill eachother over scraps these dynamics are very obvious. I don't think neither ideology is evil though. As of today we should be probably still living in a capitalist system though. Judging by human history and its patterns of development I don't think its unrealistic to talk about utopia or getting there.
@@toby8814 yeah but, we don't live in a capitalist world. Its a matter of grade. Imagine a line, in one extreme you have pure socialism/statism/totalitarism(lets number it 100), in the other extreme you have freedom/free market capitalism/liberal anarchism or ancap(lets number it 0). I believe that on average the world is between 25-40, what we see is a socialist world that despite it, the free market(the people interacting voluntary) have found ways to still go on. We mistakenly call capitalism(free market) what in reallity is a form corporative socialism that exploits the good things about the free market at the same time that it attacks it. Corporations are a semi-private economic arm of the state(they are more eficient that state companies and enterprises) (English is not my native tounge)
@@juanmilano224 Your conclusion is very spot on I was just thinking about that. But economically, “sharing-based” elements to our economy are very few. In America they made poor people think free medicine is socialism. Which is bad so no free medicine (like everywhere). Lol. And for ideology, or socioculturally, we worship money. Because we are still immature as a species. But we are exactly in a phase of what you called “socialist corporatism” - just without the respect for the working class. And no ideology. Just supply and demand for everything. The single ideology is economic growth (just like the main aim of soviet “socialism”) which (in our world, not like socialism) is supply and demand for everything. Without any ideal. Until when?Indefinitely. Until the world is dried out of resources. The Soviet Union, for example (model by which when we say socialism we infer the soviet system which was exported in the 20th century) was economically a State that accumulated and organized all resources in the country in a very centralized manner and turned a profit on the international market. Which then got reinvested on growing and industrializing the economy. Because we still needed that a lot, then. Because they had been a feudal economy (or backwards like all the third world countries it got exported to) that needed rapid growth. This is what works if you want to completely industrialize and modernize a backwards economy that never went through capitalism in a couple decades. Ideologically, it was socialism, but economically its just state capitalism. Naturally, when the industrialization was done and the centralized system didn’t work for everything else they all eventually became more open-market. Now, we have that same process occurring worldwide because of a monopolistic market. Its like “socialism” (soviet) because of the centralized control, monopolized resources, allocation of resources by the few. And the illogically limitless surveillance state. Technology everywhere. And you fuel a hive-mind. Which has been worsened in some ways by using AI wrong. But without the “socialist” ideology. And the few positives it came with, like valuing each-other not as resources. And in practice the same stuff religions even teach. So you’re right, capitalism is becoming like socialism in all dynamics without the socialist ideal. But I disagree that corporations are for the State. Maybe the other way around. And the socialist ideology also has its negatives, like neglecting the individual life. And we have that too, very much, maybe more than “socialism”with this phase of the market.
@@toby8814 you make some elaborated points, i will try to adress them in several comments. I'll start by saying that its not corporation a for the goverment or the other way around, its that they are the goverment, at least a part of it. They are aglomerates of companies captured, sold or joined(under statism some times there is no diference) under a legal shield that provides them privileges and hurts the competition. Second, socialism doesnt need to have a caring attitude towards the working class, of course a lot forms of socialism have that at least on speech. Soviet union as state capitalism, ok, maybe, but still socialism. You cant never have socialism/statism at a 100, everyone dies or the system colapses(lack of economic calculation and incentives, classic). You could say that USSR started at 97 with early lenin, 88 late lenin, 89 early Stalin, 92 late Stalin, 85 Kruschev, jump to gorbachov at 75.
@@juanmilano224 Soviet Union was market-run with state presence under Lenin. That didn’t industrialize but made people wealthier. Stalin knew the Germans would attack and decided to make all resources state-coordinated. The five year plans were that. So a lot less free market. Well, none actually. And the people who got wealthy under Lenin (and were peasants a few years earlier) got defamed in propaganda and purged. It worked in making industry and military strong, and defeating Germany in WWII. It was very bad as for human allocation of resources. Ukranian peasants starved. And many more were treated like resources to be moved around and used for the goal.
Umm the USSR had the biggest GDP growth in the 20th century. When they tried to decentralize the economy that's when it failed. Like I'm not even communist, it's insane to me that an European would fumble simple history like that.
Newly industrializing nations see huge productivity growth. Growth levels off as the process completes. After that it's innovation, organization, and ability to compete in international markets. The centralized, massively corrupt Soviet bureaucracy failed on all counts, producing inferior products, without accounting for organic demand, that could not compete outside the Eastern block.
The excesses of capitalism i,e. the 2009 financial crash caused by the greed of a few Wall St banks are the engine of the cyclical nature of the economic system itself. This cycles mark the ups and downs of factors like employment or unemployment, inflation or stagnation and so on and they are expressed in the tragedy of human life right in front of our eyes. Another example is the never ending wars that the US wages constantly since the end of the II world war. The death toll, the destruction of cities, farms, infrastructure, schools etc, in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan to name the obvious, are not an accidental byproduct of this wars but the consequence of deliberate economic manipulation with a very clear political motive: the generation of profits for a very important sector of the US economy to pave the way of survival of world dominance. Each of this wars have been an intervention to manipulate the economic cycle intrinsec in the very nature of capitalism without considering the human suffering and without any moral consideration. In this sense, to talk of the atrocities of the Stalinist era and to attempt to take a higher moral ground is just pure hypocrisy. What failed in the USSR was not communism. It was a bureaucratic and corrupted state that was formed to resist the onslaught of fascism first and in general of capitalism and the menace of the US military during the Cold War. Any eulogy of 'the American system' is blind to the catastrophic social and environmental consequences of the manipulation of the cyclical nature of capitalism and therefore makes its defenders complicit in their own blindness.......
@@jimbodimbo981 CCP is buying out all the democratic countries. They recently destroyed Myanmar. Democracy has a flaw i.e corrupt leader and sold out media.
Not to mention that the philosophical justification for communism isn't even valid. Marxist communism relies on the Labor Theory of Value to reason that profit is inherently exploitative, but it's a thoroughly discredited theory. The value of any commodity is subjective.
Yes, correct…
Plus you know how he just plays words games OH THE CAPITALIST HIRES FOR 10 HOURS AND OVERWORKS THEM FOR 12 HOURS AND THEN KEEPS THE VALUE OF THE EXTRA HOURS FOR HIMSELF!! EXPLOITION! COMMUNISM NOW! Moron.
People aren’t cookie cutters and you need all people to agree on all things for communism to be thinkable. It’s impossible without tyranny
It's also impossible with tyranny.
I agree.
@@r1a1p1AllenPogue I agree with you also.
“Capitalism is not convergent but divergent.”
Umm, kind of. It’s technically oscillatory, with very catastrophic collapses. When things become too divergent there’s a convergence event (wealth collapses). Then things diverge, and subsequently collapse.
Yeah globally that's what happens, nothing can diverge forever, but that's not the point, the point is that it's not stable.
And it started with a guy describing utopian family as an example of what communism was supposed to be as non-utopian ;)
The fact it is utopian even on a scale of one family, imagine how utopian it is to try to implement it into billions-sized society.
Two thousand years ago all relatively “developed” places had slaves they tortured and coerced. And areas where they hunted for people to reduce to that. And that was the family, the tribe, the state, the empire etc...
Now, we have a lot less of that. And have developed a natural disdain that not even being de-sensitized can overturn. I don’t think there is anything utopian in spotting long-term patterns. Its dumb to think we’ll start going backwards, long-term.
@@toby8814 Being cruel to each other doesn't require slave-master relation. We have less slaves, but being in the internet for quite some time now I would argue we are not really stepping down on cruelty. By the way, slavery is based on a premise that "they" are not the same as "we", less worthy. This imo hasn't changed a bit. There are always "we" and "they" in e v e r y t h i n g. Families, companies, nations, sports, sexes, tall people, short people, you name it.
Communism assumes certain equalities that are not achievable due to differences in capabilities of each human entity.
Going backwards or not, depends on a region of the Earth you talk about because, believe me, there are regions where you could walk freely some years ago and now you won't even get killed for free ;)
1st world countries outsource their trash to places no one talks about and we think we live in peaceful world. Rome was rather peaceful power in it's core regions, while they were slaughtering bordering nations for expansion. That kind of resembles what's today, it's just borders are a bit differently perceived and methods are more clever so it feels just.
Many things changed, well, apart from human nature. We are the same greedy, self-centered animals we've been thousands years ago. Communism may succeed only when some filthy rich capitalistic pig finds more profit from it succeeding rather than from some beautiful human evolution. It is always about "me", the leader, the one who brought new order, the one on all those statues, in all history books. This is not how you drive revolution of equals. This is why it will never happen. That ofc doesn't mean tons of people won't lay sacrificed on the altar of hopes and delusions.
I drifted a bit. Cheers.
@@Lesminster Nah man I like the logic. I wasn’t defending communism by the way. Surely, your first intuition that the current state of media = dissolution of morals is true. Not because media is immoral, but because where there is no emotion there is no compulsion to do whats right.
And with everything getting exacerbated with how media (and all industry) grows limitlessly in search of profit and more. Thats systemic though if you ask me. Its not just the species. Its the materialist aspects of the species getting exacerbated on a scale like never before. Divisions like that you mentioned also get overused for personal nowadays the same way. Since personal gain is now more than ever the core of our society. Thats not to say there isn’t some truth to basic stuff and we should all completely transcend humanity.
My disagreement is that humans are just that. A bunch of idiots that want more and more, and are Just greedy, Just status-driven, Just sectarian, Just prone to eating the world dry to the bone to feel better for a bit.
I think thats just easier though. Or we think its easier. I don’t think anyone, in their heart, thinks they will ever be satisfied with that.
And theres aspects of our humanity that make us more prone than any other animal to seek the other opposite. Whether you find that in religion, scientific knowledge, spirituality or just simplicity and lack of expectations.
We are the most adaptable species. The only species on this planet with science, philosophy, spirituality and deeply ingrained understanding of that sort. And maybe the only species that understands that eating at the world indefinitely and isn’t happiness. And socioeconomic/tribal superiority over another isn’t either.
And in a way, I think this more of everything is sharpening people to understand that better gradually.
Its all about execution! We all know nothing is perfect, why are we still insisting on searching for one perfect ideology? Take the best from both ideas and continously seeking improvement.
🙌
Are you referring to a free market system with some welfare programs?
I had a simular thought about communism and why it's failed. his family comparasion was nice to hear
and this is a dystopia. population of the country cant be a family
@@tatywork9126 the world has always been dystopia. This has never changed
@@lolgamez9171 true. But for a century or so we have been enjoying an milder form of it.
@@tatywork9126 only countries who have hugged the golden thigh of America have seen milder forms of dystopia, and its shine is rapidly getting duller
@@JeffCaplan313 well said. Karl Marx was fundamentally wrong in his observation that humans are communal in nature.
Just this notion that you fly frequently (no matter what is price category of tickets) is sign of wealthy individual and wealthy society. There are no such definition of poverty in Namibia and Cuba.
Did he really say that “if you are flying economy, you are not middle class?!?!” 50 years ago if you flew at all you were considered upper class
@@bogrunberger Yes I agree but prestige is not middle class
@@tashhashimi9483 EXACTLY!!?!?!?? People are so jaded these days it's unbelievable. Equating flying economy to torture is insane in jest or not, and saying you're not middle class if you fly as such is equally insane. They used to call it 1st class for a reason. Even as business class the idea is one is for the upper class and the other is for the middle class. Many if not most of the lower class aren't taking flights much as it is. Shit I can't afford to go on vacation. My family never really did and we've always been on the edge of the middle to lower classes.
The advantage of Christianity over Communism, is that even though we look forward to a state where we have "the good things without the bad things", we still have a mechanism (forgiveness) to deal with the bad things in a world and with people that we expect to be "fallen" (imperfect).
Since, you ask question about communism consistently to different guests. I suggest you to bring a marxist scholar or economist and do a full podcast.
he did
@@crypto_kyle yeah, that was four months back. Now let's ask him to bring someone like Not just bike, or Adam something (fierce critic of Elon on transportation) or any professional from 'strong town' to discuss transportation.
flying economy really sucks these days
Haha! Flying economy class is the only time I get real wealth resentment.
So "capitalism is systematically misallocating resources." Compared to what? Something imagined?
Exactly. That's like saying evolution is inefficient because it created dinosaurs instead of fire-breathing dragons.
Look up production possibilities curve (ppc). It makes sense. No matter how much of a thing is produced, some people will have an excess and some people will be deprived and this is pretty standard intro economics.
Example: "Quants". Math and Physics Ph.Ds who spend their time working on models to predict stock prices, making money for the big banks. They get more for this than, say, working to perfect fusion power, develop AI, develop ways to control that AI, etc. What benefits us more down the road, better proprietary models to predict the stock market, or working fusion power, controllabe AI, improved nanotechnology, etc.?
@@nedames3328 This sounds suspiciously like an, Other people are not doing what I want them to do argument. Or, if I was the economic dictator I could do things much better.
@@mustang607 Sounds like. Perhaps. The question remains: in the long run which use of resources (highly trained STEM people) leaves the average person better off? By your argument: "Who are you to judge?" no non-coercive economic system can misallocate resources. You might want to rethink that one.
why do i feel like this guy would blow jordan peterson’s mind?
The intellectual domain of JBP and Joscha Bach shares a really close kinship with one another. I doubt either would 'blow' each other's mind, but I'm sure we can all agree that their conversation would be legendary nevertheless.
@@Lk_boca I think Joscha Bach is much smarter than JP. I think there's overlap with regards to his critique of historical communism and post-modernism, but it's not clear to me that Bach takes those critiques as necessarily confirming JP's defense of current power structures. In particular I'd say the extent to which JP defends current power-structures takes on a very reactionary character since he in particular defends traditional morality and current power structures to the extent that they inherent a certain traditional morality that was more dominant in the discourse few decades ago. I don't see that with Bach.
Joscha argues that the reason communism fails is because it replaces economic coercion under capitalism with a moral/social coercion. Joscha's notion of creating self stabilizing systems could in fact I think be used to justify a form anarchism. Though, if like JP, Bach believes that hierarchies are so natural to human nature that fighting against most of them is a bad idea, then that refutes my claim that he's potentially arguing for anarchism. I simply don't know what Bach thinks about that and I personally hope he doesn't fall for the same naturalistic fallacy as JP. I'd be willing to guess that Bach does believe capitalism is preferable system relative to anything else we've seen historically, but honestly his views are nuanced and complicated enough that I don't think I can reduce any of what he says to a flat out defense of capitalism and I think there's room for the listener to hear what they want to hear as opposed to what he's actually saying. JP on the other hand would be more explicit in his defense of capitalism.
@Sir Sleepy There's a sense in which hierarchies are natural, but there's also, to give a blunt example, a sense in which murder is natural. That is to say, just because hierarchies are inevitable, that doesn't mean it's necessarily right to strive to protect them. To say something is good because it appears in nature - or at least to defend something as being necessary just because it exists in nature falls under the naturalistic fallacy. And my interpretation is that JP not only thinks hierarchies are inevitable but that they are essential to keep people, especially men, behaving themselves. And by extension he also upholds the Judeo-Christian God as being one mechanism to enforce this hierarchy. Though to me that latter part ignores the fact plenty of societies are organized by more animist religious principles or religions that don't even put an emphasis on gods, such as Taoism and Buddhism. So I think there's a sense which he's also narrowminded with his cultural biases.
Moreover, if I really dig into JP's arguments I think we can also find plenty of hierarchies in human societies that not only are bad but also don't exist in nature. Of course, JP would agree with me on this as well, and he's made a point of being against authoritarianism, but I'd go a step further and say religions as practiced in a lot of Christian and Muslim countries are also unnatural hierarchies or that nation states in general are unnatural hierarchies that don't have to emerge from whatever tendency towards hierarchy might exist in human nature - where even if humans are really hierarchical in nature, I don't think that's a quality we should embrace. And in reality, on a small scale, we see lots of interesting ways in which humans have organized themselves across history that isn't just traditional monarchies that necessarily evolve into republics we have today.
I have to of course leave a footnote to mention that what is "natural" and "unnatural" can also be hard to pin down. I can point to certain things being natural given the way humans didn't evolve to live in massive cities, but they do anyway, and our nature causes us to behave weirdly in those artificially constructed contexts. Although My definitions aren't perfect, I hope you at least se what I'm getting at with all this.
If I really want to summarize everything, I think JP's philosophy is just standard reactionary conservatives in the veneer of philosophical language so I don't actually have a lot of nice things to say about it.
When you comment about commu ism but you have never read marx
"If you are still flying economy, you are not middle class"
You could also say, "If you are not a manager (literally 'bourgeois'), you are not middle class". It's very silly and quite European, (Continental, particularly) setting meaningless boundaries like this.
The American rule of thumb is, if you have equity in your house and a retirement account of some kind (you own stock), you are Middle Class. The fact that the American system produced a majority of people who fall into this category is a testament to how far superior it is to the European system.
"You will own nothing, and you will be heppy". I'm not sure I know anyone who wants to be 'heppy'. I'm not even sure what it means, to 'be heppy'.
cope
@@sorenjunkers3834 Thanks for the interaction. Are you a bot?
That’s a pretty dumb indicator of middle class. We’re probably in the top few percent and we always fly economy. That few hours of discomfort allows you to have a nicer time at your destination.
That was sooo stupid. It is like saying Alexander the Great was poor.
In economics, the notion that "everything that goes up, must come down" doesn't work.
Well it does
The idea of regulating against complexity is absurd and Joscha does a great job with the garden/weeds analogy.
Damn then he goes and says capitalism misallocates resources. Individuals misallocate resources and pay the price with a financial loss. An entrepreneur that fails has misallocated resources, not sure how capitalism did that.
Communism (Marxism) fails because it gets outcompeted (i.e., it's worse than capitalism), it doesn't scale, and it is full of contradictions.
Communism doesn't exist in capitalist countries because it gets outcompeted. Capitalism doesn't exist in communist countries because communism requires absolute conformity. Put another way, the only capitalism found in a communist country is a black market, though there tends to be a lot of them. If communism were anywhere close to better than capitalism, it would be ubiquitous; instead it tends to only be found in academia and similar ivory towers. Meanwhile, (would-be) communist countries today are completely reliant on the advancements of capitalist countries to sustain anything close to the standard of living found in the West.
An extension of this is that communism doesn't scale. Communism, of any significant size, requires mass and uniform adoption, usually via violent revolution and oppression, to try to sustain itself. Simply put, if an idea doesn't excel at increasing degrees of the micro, it doesn't deserve adoption on the macro. If you think communism has excelled at some point, I suggest you read more history and also refer to the previous paragraph. Would-be communist countries today would be 50 or more years behind if it weren't for the advancements of the capitalist world, and many of them still are (e.g., Cuba and Laos). The only exceptions to this rule are those like China that have "temporarily" adopted a hybrid economy for the sake of being able to feed its own people, though ideologically they have every intention of reverting to communism after beating the West.
As for contradictions, I could go on all day if I thought long enough, but a few are 1) The requirement of a temporary state to dictate the economy's direction that is supposed to spontaneously dissolve when the communism reaches cruising altitude. 2) An arbitrary definition and goal for sufficient capitalist material abundance, from which the communist revolution is meant to flourish and multiply by reallocating everything "fairly." As you can tell by the nature of communist advancement since its heyday in the 20th century, communism can easily spoil abundance, or maybe it just wasn't abundant enough; which begs the question, is there ever really such a time of sufficient material abundance, and what does it say that communism admits to relying on this initial capitalist ("immorally produced") abundance? These are contradictions because they contradict what communism is trying to achieve and rely on altruistic human nature; hence why when power is consolidated "temporarily", it never is temporary; or why "now" is always the right time for a wide-scale communist revolution, until it fails, in which case " *They* didn't do it right. I would have..."
If someone compares communism to Christianity that means they don’t understand Christianity
Fly on any Chinese airline, and economy, as well as business or first class, is torture. Horrid customer service, shit food, and you can’t use any electronic device the ENTIRE flight.
I disagree. When I use Chinese airlines I have my best experiences. Some say it reminds them of flying on a Western airline in the 60's
@@maimedlord6999 They allow people to smoke during flights?
@@melissalayton8406 lol no. It's the quality of the service and flight attendants.
Why no devices
@@CE-vd2px Because communists.
Seems pretty simple why it fails, we are equal, well YOU are, we need to govern you equals.
Flying economy here is symbolic of how you live. Don’t take it literally.
Communism is Impractical for exactly the same reason that Libertarianism is impractical... We, as a species, are not good enough to live under such an arrangement. To be sure, a few individuals are capable of thriving under such conditions. But most would degenerate either system by self-centeredness and avarice. We are born into this world as communist... "From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs". But the nuclear family thrives on trust. Trust that's impossible to scale up to the National level.
Actually if you can afford even an airplane ticket at all , you are in the top cream of human society
What if the core of communism was more resentment about those how have more be it because they are corrupt, smart or hard working.
You punish all of these and reward those who are corrupt, dumb and lazy at work and bring the whole society in the same boat. The problem too is the lack of hierarchy, having one system where the whole can sink if a few don't do their job instead of personal responsibility, family responsibility, community, city and so on.
The statement about flying economy is stupid, if he thinks that flying economy is torture I really can’t take anything the guy says seriously.
We can coexist, coordinate and thrive on an entire global scale. Capitalism, with its rapid development of productive and communication technology in the past 300 years, has laid the material basis for such large scale cooperative society, free of exploitation of man by man. Communism is nothing but the next logical stage of the historical development of human societies, which evolve mainly on the basis of interactions between forces and relations of production. It's true the Russian Revolution degenerated, but communism can't be built in one country, especially a country that inherited such backwardness as Russia did. Communism is international or it's nothing. The German Revolutions of 1918 and 1923 needed to succeed in order for Russian Revolution to not be taken over by careerists and bureaucrats.
I like the garden analogy. Healthy balance, with competition. Steinbeck, in "Log of the Sea of Cortez", posed this same point, when observing that where life was difficult, competitive (lots of fish), then the ecosystem was healthy. Where no competition, weakness. My perspective - look at how India was so easily toppled by the British. Or the Mayans, Incans crushed by a few hundred conquistadors. Yeah, I get the guns, germs & steel, read the book, and yet.. inherently, a weak system. Even the conquistadors were astonished at how easily these corrupt systems collapsed. Contrast that with Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea.
Communism fails because it rewards selfishness. Capitalism succeeds because it rewards helping others.
Rewarding helpful behavior and letting those most knowledgeable of their needs decide what is helpful is an optimal system.
That is literally one of the most wrong things I have read in my life.
Let’s see if Lex gets murdered on this clip. I suspect he won’t because we are essentially talking about his motherland.
All popular conservative channels are financed by the same people. It is no coincidence.
Joscha grew up in Eastern Germany so he has lived Communism as well
@@acadianalien yeah but he seems more level headed than Fridman
Your economic "class" is determined by how much money you make and you could also include the cost of living for where you live as a factor. What you do with your income is your choice, as miss-allocating resources is a personal problem.
It’s also determined by the kind of job you have (manual labour, etc). Also wages have not kept up with productivity and have been flat for 30 years when you adjust for inflation. It’s not just “stupid ppl.” Neoliberal policies have prioritized the well-being of elite institutions at the expense of working people.
@@TheInternationalist I would relate your type of job to your social class. Someone working a pipeline for over $100K/year will be in the same economic class with others earning 6 figures, but socially literate with other blue collar types. Of course the inflation problems we have now are going to push everyone "under $300K" as bloomberg says, down a notch. Our ruling class has absolutely destroyed middle class prosperity. Make the 99% equally poor seems to be the direction we're headed
5:53 In my opinion there is a fubdamental flaw in his argument. "miss alocating" resources is a subjetive term here, if a rich guy wants to invest more into a new proyect instead of rising the existing salaries, the cureent employes migth remain poor, but with the new proyect, NEW jobs are created, including more people to the system.
Eventually the increasing productivity will lead to cheaper goods and services, and the cycle will growth virtuosly.
True, but there is an inevitable cyclical collapse that system. Capitalism is good and all but it does not seem to reach a steady state and stay there, it seems to like exploding like a supernova every couple of decades.
@@acadianalien like all systems in nature.
First, if you are going to inovate, let people be free to explore new ways of living better, of course will be failures, recesión etc, but from all those failures will be success that move the society forward. If you are not failing, you are not trying to live better.
Second you can live perfectly well in a unestable system, by having savings( buffers) but people are not educated to do so. And the less buffered are the diferent parts of the economy, the less it can contain local failures and avoid them to propagate and become collapses.
Third, the recurrent collapses in capitalism like the great depresion or 2008, are because the state pretty much intervine with stimulus and applied socialism policies like giving away credits, etc,
@@acadianalien Crisis are caused by governments and central banks, in real or full capitalism (not what we have now cause we still regulate the market) a specific sector may enter into crisis, for example agriculture, but never society completely. The only problem y think capitalism may have is that it works too well and we should think of how to make it sustainable given the limited resources the planet has.
@@s3rz324 Banks and government obviously make it worse, but I still think that Capitalism is fundamentally unstable. No matter what we do, capital always accumulates to fewer and fewer people.
I think it is an amazing system that lifts many people out of poverty, but it will never reach a stable equilibrium like we want it to. It is similar to entropy in some ways.
@@s3rz324 Capitalism only works well for certain things. But capitalism is too short term and only looks at profits at the expense of many people. Capitalism is efficient but not everything must be run efficiently some things like hospitals, the utilities and transportation you need redundancy built in.
Lex My Man
Lex is all over the place in this episode, he should have slept more..
I think he tries his best but Joscha is just next level
I’m not high enough to wanna think about what he is saying rn ...
an equal but productive society is an issue of allocation of resources and tasks. to uphold each individuals interests, I think this becomes an issue of computation (one set of data for each idividual). once ai does superhuman intelligence I think we might be best off to create an AI system maximizing induvidual happiness and economic growth. this AI will then stabilize our societal and economic system.
I welcome our AI overlords deciding our future🙄
@@jimbodimbo981 there's going to be AI overlords anyway, might at least make sure they uphold our personal interests instead of letting bussinesses and 3-letter-agencies grow AI into economic and political control machines.
His airplane example is false. There is 1st class, business, economy, and than greyhound. Economy is the middle
Yes, and there are people outside of capitalist system that can not afford airline tickets in any category.
“Utopia” can have both positive and negative connotations. The negative is a far more fascinating idea to consider
Has anyone ever noticed how in flocks, packs, & crowds, when one individual in said groups finds sustenance how all the others try to take it away from them?
maybe they wouldn't if they weren't hungry in the first place
@@Dooshanche we’re not talking about hunger my friend. You know I & do do I. Big differences exist between physical demands & emotions without morals.
@@diogenes5381 I don't think there's much of a difference. Needs are needs, some are stronger but they all serve the purpose of survival, and when you don't have them you're hungry for them
This guy dont know capitalism.
Guy was very logical imo. Usually you get people talking about "communism's death toll" and mention stuff like famine from grain requisition or any of these dynamics (which were terrible situations which we often don't understand why it happened - rapid industrialization because profit-incentivized war was likely) you never get someone making them think of all the situations that are a direct consequence of capitalism. Or just a degenerated boundless profit-incentive market system with vast accumulation of resources, and its death toll. Which is a death toll just like that which happened under the communist ideology - be it the famines, torture, mass deportations, genocide because acquiring natives' land was profitable. You name it.
To someone living in any capitalist third world nation, or nation with natural resources and foreign military presence, or impoverished area where kids kill eachother over scraps these dynamics are very obvious. I don't think neither ideology is evil though.
As of today we should be probably still living in a capitalist system though. Judging by human history and its patterns of development I don't think its unrealistic to talk about utopia or getting there.
@@toby8814 yeah but, we don't live in a capitalist world. Its a matter of grade. Imagine a line, in one extreme you have pure socialism/statism/totalitarism(lets number it 100), in the other extreme you have freedom/free market capitalism/liberal anarchism or ancap(lets number it 0).
I believe that on average the world is between 25-40, what we see is a socialist world that despite it, the free market(the people interacting voluntary) have found ways to still go on. We mistakenly call capitalism(free market) what in reallity is a form corporative socialism that exploits the good things about the free market at the same time that it attacks it. Corporations are a semi-private economic arm of the state(they are more eficient that state companies and enterprises)
(English is not my native tounge)
@@juanmilano224 Your conclusion is very spot on I was just thinking about that.
But economically, “sharing-based” elements to our economy are very few. In America they made poor people think free medicine is socialism. Which is bad so no free medicine (like everywhere). Lol. And for ideology, or socioculturally, we worship money. Because we are still immature as a species.
But we are exactly in a phase of what you called “socialist corporatism” - just without the respect for the working class. And no ideology. Just supply and demand for everything. The single ideology is economic growth (just like the main aim of soviet “socialism”) which (in our world, not like socialism) is supply and demand for everything. Without any ideal. Until when?Indefinitely. Until the world is dried out of resources.
The Soviet Union, for example (model by which when we say socialism we infer the soviet system which was exported in the 20th century) was economically a State that accumulated and organized all resources in the country in a very centralized manner and turned a profit on the international market. Which then got reinvested on growing and industrializing the economy. Because we still needed that a lot, then.
Because they had been a feudal economy (or backwards like all the third world countries it got exported to) that needed rapid growth.
This is what works if you want to completely industrialize and modernize a backwards economy that never went through capitalism in a couple decades. Ideologically, it was socialism, but economically its just state capitalism. Naturally, when the industrialization was done and the centralized system didn’t work for everything else they all eventually became more open-market.
Now, we have that same process occurring worldwide because of a monopolistic market.
Its like “socialism” (soviet) because of the centralized control, monopolized resources, allocation of resources by the few. And the illogically limitless surveillance state. Technology everywhere. And you fuel a hive-mind. Which has been worsened in some ways by using AI wrong. But without the “socialist” ideology. And the few positives it came with, like valuing each-other not as resources. And in practice the same stuff religions even teach.
So you’re right, capitalism is becoming like socialism in all dynamics without the socialist ideal. But I disagree that corporations are for the State. Maybe the other way around.
And the socialist ideology also has its negatives, like neglecting the individual life. And we have that too, very much, maybe more than “socialism”with this phase of the market.
@@toby8814 you make some elaborated points, i will try to adress them in several comments. I'll start by saying that its not corporation a for the goverment or the other way around, its that they are the goverment, at least a part of it. They are aglomerates of companies captured, sold or joined(under statism some times there is no diference) under a legal shield that provides them privileges and hurts the competition.
Second, socialism doesnt need to have a caring attitude towards the working class, of course a lot forms of socialism have that at least on speech.
Soviet union as state capitalism, ok, maybe, but still socialism. You cant never have socialism/statism at a 100, everyone dies or the system colapses(lack of economic calculation and incentives, classic). You could say that USSR started at 97 with early lenin, 88 late lenin, 89 early Stalin, 92 late Stalin, 85 Kruschev, jump to gorbachov at 75.
@@juanmilano224 Soviet Union was market-run with state presence under Lenin. That didn’t industrialize but made people wealthier. Stalin knew the Germans would attack and decided to make all resources state-coordinated. The five year plans were that. So a lot less free market. Well, none actually. And the people who got wealthy under Lenin (and were peasants a few years earlier) got defamed in propaganda and purged. It worked in making industry and military strong, and defeating Germany in WWII. It was very bad as for human allocation of resources. Ukranian peasants starved. And many more were treated like resources to be moved around and used for the goal.
Umm the USSR had the biggest GDP growth in the 20th century. When they tried to decentralize the economy that's when it failed. Like I'm not even communist, it's insane to me that an European would fumble simple history like that.
Newly industrializing nations see huge productivity growth. Growth levels off as the process completes. After that it's innovation, organization, and ability to compete in international markets. The centralized, massively corrupt Soviet bureaucracy failed on all counts, producing inferior products, without accounting for organic demand, that could not compete outside the Eastern block.
The excesses of capitalism i,e. the 2009 financial crash caused by the greed of a few Wall St banks are the engine of the cyclical nature of the economic system itself. This cycles mark the ups and downs of factors like employment or unemployment, inflation or stagnation and so on and they are expressed in the tragedy of human life right in front of our eyes. Another example is the never ending wars that the US wages constantly since the end of the II world war. The death toll, the destruction of cities, farms, infrastructure, schools etc, in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan to name the obvious, are not an accidental byproduct of this wars but the consequence of deliberate economic manipulation with a very clear political motive: the generation of profits for a very important sector of the US economy to pave the way of survival of world dominance. Each of this wars have been an intervention to manipulate the economic cycle intrinsec in the very nature of capitalism without considering the human suffering and without any moral consideration. In this sense, to talk of the atrocities of the Stalinist era and to attempt to take a higher moral ground is just pure hypocrisy. What failed in the USSR was not communism. It was a bureaucratic and corrupted state that was formed to resist the onslaught of fascism first and in general of capitalism and the menace of the US military during the Cold War. Any eulogy of 'the American system' is blind to the catastrophic social and environmental consequences of the manipulation of the cyclical nature of capitalism and therefore makes its defenders complicit in their own blindness.......
There should be no reason to have to fly within our own country.. Wheres the rail
🍿
CCP is doing just fine
Not so much the people suffering under the CCP
@@jimbodimbo981 CCP is buying out all the democratic countries. They recently destroyed Myanmar. Democracy has a flaw i.e corrupt leader and sold out media.