this post was submitted on 05 Oct 2024
268 points (92.9% liked)
Asklemmy
43965 readers
1964 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I think decentralization of power is a nice feature too. Billionaires are power centers outside of the government, judiciary, or military. They exist as a result of lax control on the markets by the government. In countries without capitalism and property rights, the billionaires are the government and the judiciary and the military. So, even though it might seem like nationalizing their wealth would decrease inequality, if there aren't good safeguards for decentralizing government power, it would result in a less equal society.
Part of the existence of billionaires is the ability to actually determine which money is theirs. In autocratic governments, you can't really say who owns what because you never know what the government might decide to take.
I don't defend billionaires, I think power should be spread more fairly, but eliminating them via the government needs to be done wisely in order to maintain decentralization.
Maintaining decentralization just allows for more centralization as markets coalesce into monopolist syndicates, better to centralize, make public property, and democratize.
The main argument is that that would not less to democratic control. Are there any historical examples where you have both democracy and violation of private property rights?
Cuba, the PRC, USSR, etc. All had large democratization of the economy compared to the fascist slaver system under Batista, the Nationalist Kuomintang, and the brutal Tsarist regime. Centralization doesn't inherently mean democratic control, but you can't have meaningful democratic input without control, and thus democratic output.
Again, decentralized market systems naturally result in the "better" firms monopolizing and outcompeting, this isn't something that can be meaningfully fought.
AES states have by no means been perfect democratic wonderlands, of course, but they have brought large democratization with respect to the level of development of the productive forces. I highly recommend reading the essay Why do Marxists Fail to Bring the "Worker's Paradise?" It takes 20 minutes and contextualizes the benefits and struggles of AES states. Socialism is often judged through a false, idealist lens, rather than an analysis of the actual material conditions and structures.
It was an interesting read and reminded me that democratic socialists arguing for restricted capitalism and communists are often arguing for similar goals with differing language.
Sort of. Communists don't want restricted Capitalism, they want to progress from Capitalism to Socialism.
In the US, they just have solidified a really good means of controlling it… I mean, the amount we don’t tax them, the super PACs we let them contribute to, and the control they have over our media are definitely forms of control that may not be “as bad” as other systems (arguably) but it seems like it’s really similar.