this post was submitted on 05 Oct 2024
269 points (93.0% liked)

Asklemmy

44149 readers
1020 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy ๐Ÿ”

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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Maintaining decentralization just allows for more centralization as markets coalesce into monopolist syndicates, better to centralize, make public property, and democratize.

[โ€“] MacroCyclo@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

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?

[โ€“] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[โ€“] MacroCyclo@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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.

[โ€“] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Sort of. Communists don't want restricted Capitalism, they want to progress from Capitalism to Socialism.