Cuba is a great example of where socialism shines. The government is small enough and the culture is contiguous enough that it’s a take good option there. Good call.

What one was the USSR led to what now is Russia - many States being away and associating to greater degrees with the west, and corruption spreading like a plague. Not that the US is doing well on that front right now, but it has lasted slightly longer than the USSR without becoming total shitshow. We’re getting there, though.

Capitalism can, with a discontiguous culture, ‘hold it together’ longer than socialism can in a similar situation before shitting the bed - particularly when there are options for some socialistic services present.

PRC isn’t precisely a shining example of socialism, but is doing a great job of adopting a lot of ideas from capitalism. If any nation sorts out the balance of socialism and capitalism via praxis, it will be the PRC. Their human rights record isn’t great, though, and really doesn’t seem any better than western counterparts. I can accept that the PRC is a power, but I don’t think it truly fits socialism, regardless of its roots.

Again, though - cultural contiguity is really key to really successful truly socialistic states - but that has greater difficulty dealing with diversity - and that shows in larger states, where excessive cultural colonization occurs (as with the PRC), or corruption results.

I’d rather not give you the advantage of explaining it to you.

If that puts my argument at a disadvantage, I’m fine with that, because I don’t need you to adopt my viewpoint.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_socialism

Which particular actually existing socialism are you referring to as being functional and not actually capitalistic?

I think this ghosts are yours - you seem to be the tilted one here.

I mean that socialism sounds great on paper, but actual attempts fail terribly, and it’s always someone else’s fault, or this or that extenuating circumstance.

If socialism works, I encourage you to go about living a socialistic life. Which is difficult in many environments, because it’s a difficult thing to implement well - whereas for capitalism, you just need to offer to trade people this for that, and things snowball.

That said, capitalism sucks, and we need to do things in a way that actually meets the needs that socialism promises to fulfill, but does poorly at actually fulfilling.

🦗

For an idea that has come before, and has difficulty “being done right”, the idea that socialism and communism is what comes next seems excessively optimistic - unless you mean in some dualistic or otherwise cyclical kind of sense.

Indeed, followed by other means of organizing society. …and on and on.

It can absolutely be superseded, but the concepts underlying it cannot be destroyed, and it cannot be simply erased. Rather, those underlying dynamics must be incorporated into our larger body of concepts. Similarly, capitalism cannot simply erase the foundations of earlier systems, it must adapt to incorporate those concepts, and meet the needs which those systems met - or else those needs will become great enough that they impact or temporarily displace it.

Life was also never voluntary.

Damn. That’s quite nice.

There is always “egalitarian”, but of you use that people may leap down your throat.

Not really. The only insane people I like to be involved with are those who send lots of vids privately to me, demonstrating their insanity for my judgment and/or enjoyment.

Awww! That’s some sweet skin you’ve got there.

Maybe we should use some kind of trustless system, where organizations have access to the underlying code.

Fair enough - but, emissions can be argued (with evidence) to be an interstate issue, particularly with large cities being contributors.

Honestly, I think shifting the fed to a more Confederate model would be a good idea. A large number of problems we’re running into is the attempt to control the whole nation over local interests. It might be possible to diffuse a large number of contentious points just on that alone.

The commerce clause doesn’t apply to in-state systems unless they interact with a foreign nation, native tribe, or another state.

What kind of abuse is even possible here?

deleted by creator

Oh, you’re that sort. Sorry, sorry, I’ll get off your lawn.