As i said originally marx didnt understand systems or people. His conclusion that its easier to seize centralized systems is 100% correct but he also advocates for such a system to replace the system he identifies as unstable. Which is logically hilarious foolish and in no way ensures a better outcome for workers. As the chinese im sure would tell you if they were not petrified of saying anything negative about the prc.
He advocates for public ownership and central planning, entirely different from private ownership and internal planning.
Like i said it takes months of effort to deprogram someone like youself and frankly its not worth the effort. Carry on soldier. Ill have the bandages ready when you invariably get bloodied.
Like i said it takes months of effort to deprogram someone like youself and frankly its not worth the effort. Carry on soldier. Ill have the bandages ready when you invariably get bloodied.
Yes and central planning is inherently unstable and inefficient. So you’re back to my original points that he doesn’t know what hes talking about.
Again you dont understand the implications of his system because you dont even know what metrics to use to advocate for it. Personally any system that optimizes for gdp or manipulated approval ratings as a measure of a healthy and fluroishing society design has lost the thread and doesnt know how to live.
As i told you earlier you want to convince me tell what you want to accomplish with your government and then we can discuss the metrics youd use. But so far you’ve demonstrated either: you’re absolutely clueless about how systems fail/get corrupted, what the metrics you’re using actually measure, and how they translate into behavior of the people living under those systems.
Essentially you’ve demonstrated you want to live in an authoritarian dictatorship. Hard pass.
Yes and central planning is inherently unstable and inefficient. So you’re back to my original points that he doesn’t know what hes talking about.
Throughout this entire comment chain you have never once managed to explain how central planning is “inherently unstable.” Rather than Marx, it’s evident you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Again you dont understand the implications of his system because you dont even know what metrics to use to advocate for it. Personally any system that optimizes for gdp or manipulated approval ratings as a measure of a healthy and fluroishing society design has lost the thread and doesnt know how to live.
AES countries don’t “optimize for GDP.” The USSR and PRC both doubled life expectencies, over tripled literacy rates to 99%+, dramatically expanded access to healthcare and education (being free in the USSR), saw drastic reductions in poverty, hunger, and homelessness. GDP grew alongside drastic improvements in key quality of life metrics.
Additionally, you have not proven how approval rates have been “manipulated,” your reasoning just being anti-China sentiment on your part because you don’t trust the “sneaky Chinese.” Please cite a source or drop the implied racism.
As i told you earlier you want to convince me tell what you want to accomplish with your government and then we can discuss the metrics youd use. But so far you’ve demonstrated either: you’re absolutely clueless about how systems fail/get corrupted, what the metrics you’re using actually measure, and how they translate into behavior of the people living under those systems.
You haven’t offered any explanation for a single point.
Essentially you’ve demonstrated you want to live in an authoritarian dictatorship. Hard pass.
Not at all, I want to live in a democratic state with public ownership and central planning.
He advocates for public ownership and central planning, entirely different from private ownership and internal planning.
Like i said it takes months of effort to deprogram someone like youself and frankly its not worth the effort. Carry on soldier. Ill have the bandages ready when you invariably get bloodied.
Yes and central planning is inherently unstable and inefficient. So you’re back to my original points that he doesn’t know what hes talking about.
Again you dont understand the implications of his system because you dont even know what metrics to use to advocate for it. Personally any system that optimizes for gdp or manipulated approval ratings as a measure of a healthy and fluroishing society design has lost the thread and doesnt know how to live.
As i told you earlier you want to convince me tell what you want to accomplish with your government and then we can discuss the metrics youd use. But so far you’ve demonstrated either: you’re absolutely clueless about how systems fail/get corrupted, what the metrics you’re using actually measure, and how they translate into behavior of the people living under those systems.
Essentially you’ve demonstrated you want to live in an authoritarian dictatorship. Hard pass.
Throughout this entire comment chain you have never once managed to explain how central planning is “inherently unstable.” Rather than Marx, it’s evident you don’t know what you’re talking about.
AES countries don’t “optimize for GDP.” The USSR and PRC both doubled life expectencies, over tripled literacy rates to 99%+, dramatically expanded access to healthcare and education (being free in the USSR), saw drastic reductions in poverty, hunger, and homelessness. GDP grew alongside drastic improvements in key quality of life metrics.
Additionally, you have not proven how approval rates have been “manipulated,” your reasoning just being anti-China sentiment on your part because you don’t trust the “sneaky Chinese.” Please cite a source or drop the implied racism.
You haven’t offered any explanation for a single point.
Not at all, I want to live in a democratic state with public ownership and central planning.