this post was submitted on 17 Mar 2025
70 points (79.2% liked)

Asklemmy

46588 readers
869 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. 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.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/27293783

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] pupbiru@aussie.zone 0 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (1 children)

the important thing is not socialism: it’s a government that deals with negative externalities

socialism tends to do better at that simply because often it often does better at long-term planning (but that’s not a given either), but capitalism without corporate bullshit, stock markets, etc (ie actual ownership over a business rather than just ownership over a vague thing where you’re only concerned with line goes up not long term business health) has pretty much the same drivers: long term sustainability and this holding others to account for their negative externalities

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

What you describe as "corporate bullshit" and "stock markets" are just a symptom of later stages of Capitalism. You cannot maintain the small stages forever, eventually they will coalesce into large firms and syndicates. You can't simply bust up monopoly either, manufacturing gets so complex that it needs to be done by large companies to handle the scale.

This process doesn't stop, though, it becomes better and more efficient to publicly own and plan these large firms as they get larger and larger. This is why Socialism is a necessity regardless.

[–] pupbiru@aussie.zone 1 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

just a symptom of later stages of Capitalism

i don’t disagree of course, and i wasn’t saying capitalism is the only way; i think capitalism like this is absolute trash as well… i’m simply saying that those qualities are neither intrinsic to, nor exclusively found in socialist systems

You cannot maintain the small stages forever

perhaps, but honestly i don’t think we’ve actually even tried. we jumped straight from feudalism to some form of capitalism to some socialism. we’ve never had a system that tried to keep things small - and i’m not saying we should either necessarily

but these arguments are all reasonably theoretical

Socialism is a necessity

socialism is perhaps part of a solution but dealing in absolutes is rarely ever correct

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Corporate bullshit and stock markets and whatnot are magnified in impact and scale in Capitalist systems, surely that's relevant?

As for "trying to keep things small," that's been tried. Trust busting was attempted, protectionism has been attempted, but regardless of will, material processes continue.

As for Socialism being a necessity, it's true. It will have various forms, but eventually as production gains in complexity it necessitates public ownership and planning to continue to be efficient.

[–] pupbiru@aussie.zone 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Corporate bullshit and stock markets and whatnot are magnified in impact and scale in Capitalist systems

and authoritarian tendencies are magnified in impact and scale in socialist systems because they are by definition centralised - that’s not to say it’s inevitable, just that anyone living under these systems needs to be hyper aware of those issues and respond accordingly

nothing is perfect

As for "trying to keep things small," that's been tried. Trust busting was attempted, protectionism has been attempted, but regardless of will, material processes continue.

i think the closest we have to that is the EU with things like the DMA which is making a dent… with strong regulatory authority that’s resistant to capture, it’s not impossible to regulate these things… the same is true of socialism: you need strong regulatory authorities that are resistant to capture to stop people from abusing the system for the own personal interests

As for Socialism being a necessity, it's true. It will have various forms, but eventually as production gains in complexity it necessitates public ownership and planning to continue to be efficient.

i think perhaps we should define what we actually mean - i think socialism is necessary in some part to tackle the issues we face (healthcare, housing, something akin to UBI, etc)

but i think no single system is going to be the silver bullet to all our problems: it’s going to take a long and sustained effort over many generations to figure out the right mix of all the systems we have, and it’s absolutely not going to happen in a big bang

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 hours ago

I don't know what you mean by "authoritarian tendencies," AES states are generally more democratic for the working class than Capitalist states. I think you're just accepting the tyranny of the bourgeoisie as outside the realm of democracy, when political economy is interlinked.

As for the EU, it's in decay and relies on Imperialism, it isn't a sustainable model and they are thoroughly vassalized by the US Empire.

As for Socialism, I don't mean Social programs. I mean moving from an economic model where Private Property is dominant to one where Public Property is dominant. You're right, this will be a long process, but it will be through such a model based on Public Owneship. Look to the PRC to see the kind of long, drawn-out process this is in action.