1158
93 Year Old Woman Arrested for Resisting Eviction
(lemmy.world)
This is actually an older news story, and it does appear as though she recovered from this before her death.
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/14389544
Do you believe history is a real thing that impacts where countries are development-wise, or do you believe colonialism, imperialism, and destructive geopolitical policies are fake and do not exist?
Do you think that if Cuba turned Capitalist it would suddenly become a fully developed country like in Western Europe or America overnight? Why?
Then take a look at China as an example. Its explosive growth started when it embraced capitalism (authoritarian flavor, but capitalism). Before that it more or less stagnated. Capitalism is obviously not the only requirement but it is a necessary one.
China grew steadily under Mao, but was not an industrialized economy. Under Deng, Capitalistic market reforms took place and foreign Capital was brought in to speed up development, but as you've said, the State still maintains dominance over the economy.
Capitalism is not necessary for development. Humanity developed for thousands of years pre-Capitalism, which itself is only a few hundred years old. You do not require individual mini-dictators competing for higher and higher profits in order to develop, industry can be run by the collective.
It just can't be at scale. Would be lovely if it could.
People who don't own something have no incentive to improve it. A factory run by a collective will always prioritize wages over modernizing equipment etc.
People will not invest into new ventures if they don't get profits, prioritizing luxuries/lifestyle instead.
Why can't it be at scale?
People who share ownership can democratically decide how to invest in industry, and elect a representative if they so choose. Planning is careful and democratic, and the need to invest in industry is something that is easy to understand with a well-funded education system.
On top of that, you can just-as-nonsensically claim that Capitalists will always prioritize their own pockets over modernizing equipment, which is just as false.
People will invest in productivity so that they can work less, prioritizing their material conditions.
Share ownership of what? If you mean just the factory they work in or a small group, then you get most of the same issues you denounce in capitalism. Some factories will inevitably become rich and prosperous, some will go bankrupt. There will still be wealth inequality. You will also get various new issues such us how do you found new factories and industries without re-inventing capitalism or at least having the same consolidation issues.
If you are talking about all the capital in the nation/world, then the gains you can obtain from improving your own productivity is insignificant, evaporating the motivation. It is much easier to slack off and leach of others.
Share ownership of the Means of Production collectively at scale.
Additionally, even if we follow your strawman of there being wealth inequality from different worker cooperatives, these are not "the same issues as Capitalism." You eliminate exploitation with worker cooperatives, there isn't a Capitalist stealing surplus labor value.
You create new industries and new factories via collectively directed investment. You can do this through the government, or workers councils.
No, it is not much easier to slack off systemically.
You can only argue off of vibes, I suppose.
Ok, I am a member of whatever group votes on investment in a new industry. If I approve the investment, the money can't be used for my and my collectives wages. So what do I gain to offset the loss of wages? What makes me want to do the investment? Surely I can't get a share of the profits, since those will belong to the workers in the new industry. I would be exploiting their work like a capitalist.
You socialize the investments and the gains.
How? Specifics. Or should I answer as vaguely as you: "I and my friends will steal your socialized gains for ourselves without anyone noticing".
There are numerous ways, but the very fact that you believe it would be a simple matter of stealing gains proves you are historically and logically illiterate.
The fire department isn't run by people stealing funds, nor is the post office, nor is the education system. Those work well.
Yeeees, there are magical ways to achieve that, but you will call me illiterate instead of giving a single example.
And if you think the post office or the education system works well, you are willfully blind.
Better than private schooling, haha.
Capitalism requires stealing from workers, meanwhile you are saying that Socialism is bad because stealing could happen. Do you not see the contradiction?
No, don't change the topic to the same vague straw-man nonsense.
How are you socializing the investments and gains in a way that would allow investment into new industries? Or just how do you incentivise people to invest in general if they can't collect dividends? Because that is the biggest issue capitalism solves, that communism can't (not nearly as efficiently at least). The less than ~25% of output (GDP) capitalists get for directing investment and all the other management roles they serve is the inefficiency of capitalism.
PS: The reason capitalism is more efficient is not necessarily because less is "stolen", but because the "stealing" part is done in a controlled manner similar to tax. Normal "stealing" (corruption) causes far more damage then just the amount stolen because it is not stolen from areas where it is least needed.
You seem to be assuming I said something entirely different, lol. You can do this investment via democratically elected planners and workers councils. There would be a government.
Capitalism is by far worse because the profit motive ensures the most exploitation occurs that is possible. Corruption can also be legislated against and accounted for, Capitalism's exploitation cannot, it is the point!
Additionally, in Capitalism you have a class structure where a tiny minority control all of production and are entitled to most of its gains, and this class is unaccountable.
In capitalism, the "capitalist class" is accountable to the elected government. The profit motive is separated from the legislature (except when you legalize bribery like in the US, every good idea can be implemented badly).
If the same government has a profit interest in increasing output, then worker protection, safety, environment etc goes out the window far more drastically then in capitalism.
And if the government does not have a profit interest or a weak one, other interests are prioritized. You get Soviet style economy where nothing really gets done and the whole society is poorer. Or do you deny the fact that the "oppressed capitalist worker" is better of financially than the Soviet Union one was?
The elected government in any system is beholden to the class in power, not the masses. In Capitalism, that is the Capitalist class, which is why the cycle of constant "lesser evil" voting continues.
The government does not have a profit motive, but a needs motive.
It's funny that you bring up the USSR. Despite having drastically lower income inequality than under the Tsars or in modern Capitalist Russia, GDP Per Capita steadily grew before collapsing once it liberalized, resulting in 7 million excess deaths. The citizens of the USSR also were entitled to free healthcare, education, and retiring with a state pension earlier than their US competitors. They also went from a feudal society to space in half a century.
The USSR was absolutely corrupt, no question about it, but even in it's corrupt state it was better for the poor than Capitalist Russia is today. We can pretty clearly track this by metrics. Russians of today have more access to luxury goods, but wealth inequality has skyrocketed and the poor struggle far more now than they did before.
The idea that "nothing got done" in a country that made it to space before the US is ludicrous, as well as the idea that the USSR was somehow poorer than under the Romanovs. You're inventing reality!
This is because your highest condemnation of Socialism is that what may happen in Socialism is required by Capitalism.
The income statistic in the soviet block was greatly misleading due to simple unavailability of goods. The issue often was not not enough money but nothing worthwhile on the shelves. At least as my parents described it.
The people had income, but it was just paper without value behind it. And yes, the motive of the government was weapons and vanity projects like the space race, so those did happed.
It was a developing country. Needs were addressed, but as Heavy Industry was prioritized over Light Industry, there were not many luxury goods.
None of what you said goes against my points, rather, they affirm them.
What do you mean? If my choices are have less goods but capitalists also don't get any or have a nicer life and some capitalists will have unfair luxury, I am not petty enough to choose option 1.
Those weren't the options. The options were "Needs are freely taken care of, and soon Light Industry should take off, increasing consumer goods in the long run" or "Needs are expensive, and even though wealthier people have more access to luxury goods, the majority of people struggle more."
Capitalists gain off the backs of workers, not out of a vaccuum. Again, 7 million people died due to liberalization, literacy rates dropped, home ownership dropped, and debt increased.
Sorry, but if these were not the two options then why did the USSR collapse? This seems to not line up at all, though I don't have time to look into the numbers right now. I will later.
Edit: Also technically, even if it was true, it would confirm my point about democratically run industries.
The USSR is making heavy investments in industry to improve its economy. It causes so much unrest USSR falls apart -> people will not voluntarily choose short term sacrifice for long term gains.
Please, feel free to look it up.
The USSR was dissolved illegally. 77% of people wished to preserve Socialism. Liberalizing was a long process, and was done by some of the more corrupt members of the Politburo alongside the US, especially Reagan and Gorbachev. The idea that the USSR collapsed because Socialism was unpopular is fabricated and does not represent reality.
Ok, now I know you are making shit up. Czechoslovakia had to be bloody invaded after the people rebelled against communism. Almost no one here wanted communism and there is still plenty people from that time alive to call you on your bullshit.
The USSR had to put a wall through Berlin and shoot people climbing it to keep people from running away and some still did.
I linked Wikipedia, lol.
The majority of people in Czechoslovakia feel they are worse off than under the USSR.
Please do an ounce of research, lol
I live in the Czech republic. All I need to do is not be blind and deaf to know that statistic is bullshit.
PS: If you want to know the real statistic, the Czech Republic still has a communist party. It has 3.6% of the vote resulting in 0 seats.
No, you need to check the actual statistics. I am not denying your lived experience, but encouraging you to look at actual polling.
So there is a statistic with a larger sample size and more rigorous methodology and oversight than the official election?
PS: IMO either the poll took a biased sample, or it fell prey to standard Czech trolling. In the latest official census, in the religion field, Jedi was 4 times more common than Islam.
PS2: Do you have the poll methodology? Sample size, where it was taken, etc?
It's there for you to see and check for yourself.