Yes I know China is also technically capitalist but you understand the idea
right right... which part of China is communist again? is it the permanent oligarchy? the reeducation camps? the low-paying factory jobs that make the owner class rich?
China is about a fascist as they come. One virtue doesn't eliminate 100 vices.
Say what you want about the PRC, they make the trains run on time.
(the secret ingredient is slave labor!)
The US has slave labor and all they do is pick cotton and staff call centers. If I'm living in a state with slave labor either way I'd probably take the one with the trains.
(the secret ingredient is slave labor!)
Same as any colonizer.
Well we've got all that in the US already, so can we just do the version where we get trains in addition to the other stuff, instead of just the other stuff?
Ha ha, no. Petroleum lobby needs a new pair of shoes.
I was reading the post as a reply to republicans who are saying china is bad because of communism.
"Reeducation camps". You spelled concentration camps wrong. Greetings from germany
And all the libertarians cry about is how it's not real free markets and that's why we don't have nice trains and public education etc. not understanding that it's government funding and regulations that's just barely keeping everything (pun intended) on the rails in the first place.
Libertarians are like house cats. Completely dependent on a system they neither understand nor appreciate and fiercely confident of their own independence.
fiercely confident of their own independence
In fairness, if you let the average cat out into nature it would be fine. Dump the average libertarian into nature and they wont last the night.
I've never heard any libertarian say the free market would provide trains. Maybe an ancap would go so far...
Ancaps say so pretty often
When someone's ideology is an imaginary oxymoron, they can say whatever they want.
well if the govt didn't push cars so much, there would be more trains
Spain is better at building high speed rail infrastructure than China is. The problem is not the economic system, it's what lobby groups are in charge.
I’d trade all parking spots for more trains in my city.
Now do Vietnam vs Japan or Switzerland
It’s more like American car centric culture vs rest of the world.
well not the entire rest of the world... source: living in Brazil
As much as I love Amtrak, I have to agree.
I always find it strange when I find someone in the wild who likes Amtrak. I have only heard and experienced horror stories.
I've ridden on Amtrak's business class on the NEC or sleepers outside thbide corridor since I was a child. So, I have a bit of a bias.
I took the Empire Builder from Seattle to Chicago, and then I forget which through W Va up to Philly. It was a great few days watching the countryside roll by.
I've had great rides... But the problems are more like underfunding, overpricing, underavailability, etc.
For some reason, people still act like capitalism and socialism (or communism) are mutually exclusive, that an economy must be one or the other. But if you look at essentially every national economy on the planet today, they are all some mix of the socialist mode of production (when the means of production are owned by the government, or a group of workers, or a community) and the capitalist mode of production (when the means of production are owned by a private individual or group of investors, operating for a profit). Almost no economy is exclusively one or the other.
It is true that in most countries with robust high speed rail, there is significant government involvement, like planning and building infrastructure, subsidies, or just providing rail travel as a public service. I definitely think that for a national rail service network to work, you need to do some planning. Here in the US, government and planning are bad words, but clearly they needn't be.
Social programs are not Socialism. The government doing stuff is not Socialism. You cannot take aspects of a society out of their context and analyze them discretely. The United States does not have a "Socialist" millitary. Socialism is a mode of production determined by public ownership being the principle aspect of the economy, ie large firms and key industries being firmly public, as opposed to Capitalism where private ownership is the principle aspect.
Socialism is a mode of production determined by public ownership
That's what I'm talking about. Essentially every national economy on the planet includes at least some socialist production. I can't think of a single national economy on the Earth where the production of all goods and services is carried out exclusively by privately owned, for-profit firms. Can you?
Public Ownership is not Socialism itself, but a component of a Socialist economy. An economy where public ownership controls the large firms and key industries, ie has genuine political control, is Socialist.
No system is purely public or private, hence the line of demarcation between Socialist countries and Capitalist countries is where political power is vested.
No system is purely public or private
I know, that's what I've been saying. That's my whole point.
You're conflating public ownership in general with Socialism, though, which is wrong, and leads to wrong conclusions like thinking the US Postal Service is a "socialist part of a Capitalist economy." All systems are mixed, what determines if a system is Capitalist or Socialist is which aspect is primary in the economy.
Socialism is an economic and political philosophy encompassing diverse economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production, as opposed to private ownership.
Social ownership can take various forms, including public, community, collective, cooperative, or employee.
Go back to my original comment where I described the socialist mode of production:
the socialist mode of production (when the means of production are owned by the government, or a group of workers, or a community)
I understand the Wikipedia entry, I read Marx, Engels, Lenin, and countless other Marxists. I even read anarchists like Kropotkin and so forth. You are confusing public ownership in general with Socialism as a Mode of Production, which the Wikipedia entry hints at, but you lack the context to understand that, which is why I am telling you.
Socialism and communism are not when the state does stuff.
Socialism/communism is workers owning the means of production. This is exceedingly rare and constantly attacked whenever it exists. Almost every state is overwhelmingly capitalist. That's a primary purpose of the state.
Really, your example for the "free market" transportation in the US is Amtrack? ... in a car community?
This is just a tanky shitpost.
In an anti car community. Considering the US proudly proclaims itself the champion of the free market, yeah, it's only fitting to use Amtrak as the example.
yeah, it’s only fitting to use Amtrak as the example.
Or you know ... a car? Because then it would at least be relevant to this community.
...the post is intended to portray the difference in trains -- the logical, excellent, and much preferable alternative to cars. They're excellent everywhere else but absolute shite in the supposed pinnacle of the free market.
China is as communist as the vatican is good for kids
But sure let us be blinded by propaganda and ignore that the trains in china are held together by ducktape, rails are unsafe and got build with slave labor :)
China is a Socialist country run by a Communist party, which is why the overwhelming majority of major Communist orgs recognize it as such. The economy is dominated by the public sector, which controls the large majority of key industries and large firms. They aren't fully developed post-scarcity Communist yet, but they are developing through Socialism.
Further, Chinese infrastructure is good. The rails are safe and the trains aren't held together with duct tape, and they aren't made with slave labor. This is just chauvanism.
We haVe $100k+ SuVs!
Long term rule by a single party dedicated to improving infrastructure would do that. Let's not kid ourselves that the CCP is all sunshine and rainbows though.
This is easier for China to do because they have high density population centers to connect as rail hubs, which makes the system efficient, cheap and viable, unlike in the US where things are more spread apart...but I have no illusions that in the US anybody would build this even if it was viable.
A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!
1. Be Civil
You may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.
2. No hate speech
Don't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.
3. Don't harass people
Don't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.
4. Stay on topic
This community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.
5. No reposts
Do not repost content that has already been posted in this community.
Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.
In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags: