And yet, android is still not what people mean when they say they’re running Linux.

Discussing ideas is not the same as getting my philosophy blindly from what people say on the internet.

What you worry about, being led astray by a narrow view, is precisely what I worry about in people like you. If someone is unwilling to talk about their ideas or hear others out, which is what you did, then they are less likely to hear good reason to rethink their world view.

Likewise, if you are unable to summarize your ideas in conversational form, I have low confidence in believing you understand the things you say. An expert in a scientific field is almost always able to explain more complicated theories in simpler ways that the layman can understand. If a theory can’t be explained to a layman, it’s effectively useless.

You’re also suggesting that the reason I’m here is to finally get a grasp on all these theories I’ve heard about but never learned. That’s not what’s happening, and I already told you that explicitly. I am here to talk to you about what you think. That’s normal and should be understood as normal.

No I actually just wanted to have a conversation with someone who has thoughts of their own to share. Could imagine if you asked someone what they thought about something and that just handed you an essay written by someone else? Would you have any confidence that this person has any thoughts at all?

And if you pointed that out to them, what would you think if their response was nothing but condescending?

You have not come across very well here. I was not trying to contradict or dismiss, I was looking for an honest conversation. Your constant assumptions that I am a bad faith party have directly resulted in you acting in bad faith yourself, and now you’ve proudly defended an act of pure ignorance.

You need to stop assuming you’re better than people, because you will only make yourself worse.

3 times in a row you simply linked something without typing. Do you ever think for yourself? Tell me with your own words. I want to know what you think, not what the internet thinks

Because we have limited resources, no riches can come to you without profiting from the work of others.

Why is this true, and why is this a problem?

look for yourself how rich people got their wealth and judge by yourself is that normal.

In almost all cases I can think of, a rich person became rich because they provided a product or service that others saw value in, and this generally works for the betterment of civilization.

Ford got rich off cars, the people benefitted by gaining access to transportation. JP Morgan got rich off trains, same thing, he provided a transportation service that people willfully used. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs gave us home computers, despite whatever your opinion is for each of them. Jeff Bezos got rich because he made the online marketplace so ridiculously easy to use, a service people enjoy and see value in.

This is the principle reason they got rich in all of these cases: they sold something the people wanted, at a price they were willing to.

Some moderately rich people are actually contributing positively.

Can you describe what some of these moderately rich people are doing better than the mega rich people?

But the true goal of society would be to distribute riches correctly in the first place.

Why is this the goal of society? How do you determine it’s been distributed correctly?

And how were they being exploitative?

Land value tax is simply unjustifiable, because land is the most important thing to leave in private hands. To allow for land tax is to concede that the state has a right to the land you own. The problems that has directly lead to in history are innumerable. From Rome to Russia, state control of land was at the forefront of their issues.

Why do you think reducing their wealth is a moral good? If you want to improve life for some people, your focus should not be on reducing wealth for others. The latter does not necessarily lead to the former, and it’s an inherently destructive mindset. Destroying one person’s wealth merely destroys their wealth, it does not make others lives better by default

What predatory practices?

My point of view is that the money all capitalist have is a resource that was taken from the rest of us.

Why?

you’re right we also need to figure out a plan to distribute it properly in the first place

I didn’t suggest that. Redistribution of resources doesn’t work, because people don’t easily comply with their wealth being taken away. This idea requires the assumption that it’s not theirs to begin with, so we’re back to the first question: why is a capitalist’s wealth not rightfully theirs?

Historical precedence says you’re wrong. Rockefeller, a prominent capitalist and thus commonly demonized by anti-capitalists, supported initiatives to combat hunger. His foundation provided substantial funding for soup kitchens during the great depression, and his foundation has continued to focus on public health, education, and scientific research.

JP Morgan, “the ghost of rich dudes passed”, was also philanthropic as fuck. He didn’t donate food directly, but his efforts supported educational institutions, scientific research, and the arts.

Even Elon Musk has a foundation that studies renewable energy research, space exploration, pediatric research, and more, all at cost for the betterment of the world. In fact, when it was especially popular to point out that his wealth could end poverty entirely, he started directly asking people for their metrics and potential methods. He was clearly ready to put resources into fixing a problem, but nothing ever came of it because no one actually had real metrics or methods, they just wanted a reason to dunk on Elon.

Okay so those are just some guys I already knew about, what if I just pick a random “capitalist” name I hear commonly thrown around. Carnegie, sure, not sure what he did but I know I’ve seen his name besmirched for being capitalist aaaaand yep look at that! In his older age he donated most of his wealth to the establishment of public libraries, educational institutions, and foundations aimed at promoting world peace. I literally had no idea about any details of this guy’s life, but yeah, it’s not surprising that a successful prominent capitalist lived a life of philanthropy in his later years, because that’s the more consistent pattern.

Have you ever once even tried to look into whether what you believe is true or not? Or would you just rather hate a label you’ve been told to hate?

They aren’t manufactured, you have to buy them from people second hand.

I’m not assuming that actually. None of those jobs are particularly hard. Check out baggers are not overworked.

Checkout baggers are not overworked…

had a famine in the 30s during the horribly botched collectivization of agriculture

which implies that non-collectivized agriculture was doing a good job considering the significant upswing in the 20s. After the civil war, non-collectivized farms were doing a good job.

All in all, you’re frustratingly bad at arguing anything coherent, and it’s clear you don’t actually care about proper definitions.

This response makes me think you didn’t really read my comment very closely considering I literally explain the etymology of the word “public”. Socialism is the public ownership of the means of production, and there’s good reason to consider that state ownership given the history of the word and its use over time. I don’t think I’m incoherent, I just think you don’t understand, otherwise you’d actually address my comment instead of restating your position and implying I’m stupid for not agreeing. I honest to god do recommend taking my comment a bit more seriously and rereading it. Really try to look at what I’m telling you, and if you disagree, I’d love to see you actually point out what’s wrong with my comment.

You’re never going to convince me I’m out of line here unless I can tell from your response you actually took in what I was saying, because honestly, you really didn’t have to read much of what I said to generate the response you made.

I wasn’t referring to 30s and 70s as time periods, but the actual life expectancies.

Oh, I must have assumed you meant otherwise because the USSR never reached that high of a life expectancy. They peaked in 1970 at 68 years old, at which point it trended down again. Russians never reached a life expectancy of 70 until 2015. You should also consider how volatile that graph has been in general, it simply isn’t good for a state to have that much influence over the life expectancy of all of its people.

That little bump in 1985-1990 correlates with the reign of Gorbachev. He implemented policy that gave more autonomy to enterprises (less state control), and allowed for foreign trade (opening the market, again less state control). This included giving way more autonomy to the collectivized farms, as well as allowing for private farms for both personal use and for sale on the market - in other words, he de-collectivized. Given that the central authority in the USSR was the state, you could also say the central authority has less control, and thus they decentralized.

Compare this the the US life expectancy of time. It’s much less volatile for one thing, it’s a very steady incline. They also actually did reach a life expectancy of 70 by 1970, they had it by 1965 in fact.

.

Honestly, we totally agree on quite a bit here. We obviously both don’t advocate for Stalin himself, and we totally agree decentralization is a good thing. It’s just strange to me that in the case of the USSR you don’t see how the act of decentralization was literally being less strict on collective control and more lenient on private control - in other words, being less strict on socialist policy and being a little more lenient on private ownership.

it’s also important to acknowledge that many parts of the USSR did work

It’s also important to acknowledge which parts worked, it’s also important to acknowledge why they worked. When farmers were given private ownership, they had more freedom of choice in how to manage it, which is really important to have on farms for a myriad of reasons I can get into if you want. But in any case, they were better able to feed themselves as well as bring more product to market. Surplus on food and freedom of distribution means less hunger.

However, this cannot be meaningfully achieved in a top-down system like Capitalism.

Take farming as an example since it’s on topic. Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production. In 1985-1990 USSR most privately owned farms were small scale and personally managed. What’s more top down, a guy owning a plot of land and doing what he wants with it, or being assigned to work a plot by the regional agriculture authority, who answers to the ministry of agriculture, who answered to the council of ministers, who answered to the Communist Party leadership?

.

Private Property Rights require a state while public property does not

Public Property: something owned by the city, town, or state.

I understand that the line is blurry on whether public means “of the state” or “of the people”. For example, the Romans saw the state to be in service of the people, so “public works” were state works for the people. They also saw the republic as a government of the people, so state projects were of the people either way you take it. This is exactly the same in our democracy, public spaces are managed by the state, on behalf of the people, but the democratic state is also a government of the people, so it’s effectively redundant in the modern context.

In any case, I don’t exactly think the distinction matters. As soon as a large group of people (the public) see the need to come together and make decisions and how to manage certain things and/or how to cooperate to get something done, a government is formed. When the Romans did this, they literally didn’t have a distinctive word for it, which is why they basically just called it the “public thing”, the group that handled public decision making. The nature of the Roman “public thing” swayed in and out of meaning of for the people, by the people, in service of the people, in command of the people, and it was never exclusive to one of those things.

Private property demonstrably does not require a state to exist, because that’s not always how property rights are handled. In this early period of Rome, the state could purchase and grant rights, but so could private citizens. If the people of Rome wanted a plot of land to themselves, the legal way to do so would be through a legitimate exchange with a private owner. Property rights are granted by whoever holds the property rights, private or public. Modern nations technically own the land they claim, which is why they grant access.

.

The far more important distinction are the things that which the people don’t decide need collective cooperation. That’s what we call “private”. To be privately controlled, you can’t be under the control of the collective or the control of the state, which is precisely why “private” is the antithesis of “public”. In the context of Rome, centralization would be to make it part of the “public thing”. So, if the people and senate of Rome decided to bring the whole market under the control of the people the way they did the army and roads, they would have been both centralizing control of the market and technically socialist, as the means of production would been publicly controlled. The USSR was socialist for exactly that reason.

I didn’t say the workers decided things, I said they had a right to, and then alluded to the diplomatic issues that creates… In fact, I heavily implied they can’t realistically make decisions when I said the group decides things on their behalf.

Central Planned Economy: an economy where decisions on what to produce, how to produce and for whom are taken by the government in a centrally managed bureaucracy.

In socialism, the market is controlled by the state. This fits the definition of central planning perfectly.

In capitalism, the market is not controlled by a centralized bureaucracy.

Okay I see what you mean. You agree attempted, but never achieved, I see that now. I’m sorry for misconstruing your argument, but I still take issue with your assertion that things got drastically better. That’s a big red flag to me and tends to be a sign that someone is having a big misunderstanding.

.

The Soviet Union doubled life expectancy from the mid 30s to the mid 70s

While true, it is essentially a lie by omission to leave out other key details. For one thing, if you think about it, what kind of conditions would one have to be in initially to make doubling the life expectancy even possible?

The Russians were in horribly dire straits. Life expectancy fell from 37 to 32 from 1930-1935. The chief cause was forced collectivization of farming by Stalin. Privately owned farms were confiscated by the state, and were horribly mismanaged which resulted in famine. Socialist policy directly caused that famine.

Life expectancy started going up again in 1935 after they relaxed grain procurement quotas, decentralized, and opened up private plots. This is the scaling back of socialist policy, and the implementation of capitalist policy. Capitalism policy is to thank for stopping the famine.

had constant GDP growth until it liberalized and collapsed

The US has had exponential growth, rather than linear, along with many of its allies. Russia also supplies a large percentage of the world’s oil, you’d have to make fucking up an art to make your GDP go down with a supply like that.

guaranteed free Healthcare and education,

Both were an improvement considering I don’t think much was their for either before, so I’ll give ya that.

and had mass housing initiatives

These came in response to a housing crisis caused by inadequate supply of houses when the USSR nationalized it under the Central Board of Architecture. The housing initiatives did help, but the housing problem was never solved, and it was a problem created by them.

It had far lower wealth inequality than before or after its existence

Because he killed the rich people, and no one had anything. Equality is not an intrinsically good quality, especially when it means everybody is equally impoverished.

.

I guess this is why I find the observation that communism has never existed pretty naive. Socialism, in its most honest representation, is really the state ownership of the means of production. The way Stalin held ownership in common, was to collectivize it under the state that all citizens are part of. If we are trying to achieve a stateless society, then holding ownership in common is an antithetical goal. Every step the USSR took away from common ownership was a step towards private ownership, and therefor a step towards capitalism.

Socialism means workers collectively own the means of production, and it isn’t synonymous with central planning.

This can only be true if you stop thinking at the end of the sentence, without reading into any of the implications, or any circumstantial cause and effect.

If the workers collectively own everything, then that means that every worker has just as much right as anyone else to make decisions on how the process plays out. This means that the group has to come up with a way to make decisions. Since the group has to make a decision, and everybody has a right to make decisions, the group is effectively making decisions on behalf of those in the group.

If the workers collectively own everything, then that means they have to work together and organize to get things done. This means that the group has to come up with a way to organize. This means that the group will be deciding on behalf of those in the group what work is done by who.

If the workers collectively own everything, that means the workers have to decide what rules or laws to follow, and how to enforce them. So now the group has to decide by what convention it’ll hold its members accountable. If it wants to hold members accountable, it implicitly has the power to do so.

A group with decision making power that enforces law among its members is a central authority.

A central authority with power over the market and all decision making is central planning.

Your description of capitalism legitimately sounds like mental gymnastics. You can call anything centralized if you reduce the context to only itself. That is dishonest, the context here is the market. If a market is centrally planned, then all aspects of the market need to be centrally planned by the same unit. That’s what central planning means. A disunited group of private entities all planning things for themselves is absolutely not an example of central planning.

Heracles

Sure, and capitalism has never existed either, only specific forms of libertarian-constitutionalism 🤷‍♂️

Now, if you can see how silly what I just typed is, you should be able to see how silly it is to claim communism has never been tried. You say yourself that Marxist-Leninism is a communist ideology, so if it’s being attempted, then it’s valid to say a form of communism is being attempted.

Do you consider drastically improving upon previous conditions to be a miserable failure?

All of the citation needed. Don’t make the mistake of including the goals of outcome as part of the definition, that’s just cheating. Op obviously rejects the idea that it makes things better, you can’t just assume it a priori.