I agree.

My point is that other countries with slavery and empires had the slave owners enjoy the profits uninterrupted. The more intense competition that we call capitalism made the difference that led to our civilization.

I don’t see how socialism can maintain our level of civilization without that competition.

They can be upset. As somebody seeing the post on the all-channel, it’s strange that they start and finish the post with pointing out the lead dev when there is no clear sign that he is involved.

What’s the reason for the shortage?

The best part is that chicken naturally live in forests. They are afraid of open spaces because those come with the threat of birds of prey.

in a world organized by socialism? Why would a corrupt socialist elite elect somebody like him as a leader without the threat of invasion?

You already assumed without any base the Chinese national assemby o

No, the context is a world organized by socialism, so any socialist country.

You wrote that socialism will make sure that the corrections will happen.

I am not convinced. I don’t think that capitalism is the sole reason that the masses are immature. If we had socialism, the masses would be equally complacit.

What would socialism do that would make the difference?

Related, in socialism, who would force people to work if they vote to be able to watch Tiktok all day?

Also excuse me but whose invasion?

That’s about China. As you assume, my point is that the threat of an US intervention drives the need to limit corruption.

Marx argues like capitalists during the banking crisis. Let even the critical businesses go bust

No, but you would know if you read. Marx argues to get rid of the cycle entirely by abolishing capitalism.

Yes, Marx argues against the cycle. I don’t buy that argument. There is no need to prevent it.

About the famines. My point is that the sovjet union started to rely on grain imports for oil money. When you are in a cold war, how can that happen? I haven’t seen that question in the faq.

This should be the core problem

calling universal suffrage as well an instrument of bourgeois rule. Universal suffrage, is

“the gauge of the maturity of the working class. It cannot and never will be anything more in the present-day state.”

So, make them mature first. Why bother with a revolution?

Of course there are arguments for the revolution but it was luck that it was possible then. Today, there is no way that the masses get the means of production to stage a revolution.

About the book:

On which page does he explain that a socialist state is the tool to proceed? And why do ML not like anarchists and call them bourgeois when L wants to end statehood?

It’s very taxing to read because it sounds right but has subtle contradictions. E. g. calling it dictatorship of proletariat does either mean democracy or it is a paradox.

That also happened before. Which country is not ruled by ‘winners’? The difference was that the slave owners lost out to the machine owners. The wealth comes from knowledge and investment decisions. Trade came before wars.

They can do anything, from data centers to any industrial production line. At worst they recycle aluminum.

Not every country has that much sun and the space. You don’t want to clear forests or farmland for solar energy.

Could you elaborate, please? I have the impression that calling somebody a fascist is used inflationary.

Without profit motivation, you end up with the sovjet union not having enough grain.

I see the danger in accumulation of capital like there is danger in nuclear energy. It requires skills to manage it. The answer can involve socialism but I think it’s not entirely political. Why has the population not prevented the fall of the sovjet union?

Marx argues like capitalists during the banking crisis. Let even the critical businesses go bust. The means of production remain. The state takes ownership and production continues. Shares can be sold later on. Accumulation of capital doesn’t matter if you tax it.

The last paragraph. You mention Xi Jinping who cleared corruption. Is that something that can be expected in a world organized by socialism? Why would a corrupt socialist elite elect somebody like him as a leader without the threat of invasion?

Thanks for the links. I have tried to find a contradiction to my points in the first one but haven’t.

Marx writes before democracy. If you control the law, you want accumulation of capital because you can tax it. Let the capitalists optimize society and enjoy universal basic income.

Of course there is corruption. But that’s not limited to capitalism although it can be more severe.

Not every person of the right is a fascist.

Of course, changing the mind of a non-dillusional person is already hard enough.

The creation of jobs is everything. If your life stops being a competition for survival, people outside your social ingroup stop being existential threats.

Thanks for the link.

So many topics to reply, I pick the following.

Capitalism doesn’t need infinite growth. That’s only needed if all interests are paid. Some creditors can fold. That’s where capitalists work, they have to pick or make the winners.

I wouldn’t give up on the majority maintaining a tax rate. Ignorance is paying off, so people don’t care but that can change. The question is how?

Inversely, I don’t believe that socialists are inherently less corrupt. My last paragraph was not about hardship but policy-altering threats. If socialism needs them then it’s as dependent on competition as capitalism.

The rift part in my comment. I think it’s not enough to blame the capitalist class. If the masses can be swayed by a few, whatever socialism is implemented can be toppled by a bad idea that happens to arise in somebody’s mind.

You told them or you explained and developed a plan? This is all hypothetical, because immigration also creates jobs, but to somebody threatened with losing their job, it doesn’t help that they know that the king is to be blamed.

My assumption is that they believe that a unified society can change the decisions of the king. How do you convince them that the immigrants are on their side?

BTW, it doesn’t matter that the king has the majority of surplus. The problem is that he doesn’t use it to employ everybody.

What is human nature? If there is no obvious corruption then there can be hidden corruption. Socialist people could easily find each other and live together in harmony, but they don’t, which suggests that some coercion is needed.

With effort, capitalism can be maintained, too. Elect a party that taxes capital and maintain the balance.

Would Xi Jinping be elected if there wasn’t the threat of invasion and the existential need to avoid corruption?

Are AES countries good enough for you? Which ones?

I think we haven’t found a way to create our level of civilization without competition. It’s an open challenge.

I really have to read it. But I don’t question that the state will be corrupted. My question is how that non-corruptive system can be created. That’s the tricky part.