galloog1

Exactly

That's literally the definition of economic fascism. Private corporations that are subservient to a one party state. The efficiencies of capitalism directed towards the will of the people.

I think it's important that people understand the core argument behind fascism because if you do not counter it, you allow it to spread. Sometimes not by name but in form.

It's also my core argument against any non liberal radicalism but that's not a popular view on this platform for some reason.

Being somewhat in the know, I honestly don't think it's a propaganda tool for the CCP in it's current form and making that claim unsubstantiated doesn't help with credibility. What it is though is direct access to your devices as a spy tool and a massive machine learning data source that the CCP has unfettered access to. Every phone with the app installed is now a potential sensor.

Time is a progression. I hope we've gotten smarter but we still do often fall for the same tricks.

(Abstract narrative that everyone can agree with without agreeing what tricks we're all falling victim to.)

Not everyone wants to be responsible for every aspect of their lives. Can I assume you don't want to participate in your own food production or waste disposal? Specialization of labor is an important component in this which most respectable leftist texts will at least attempt to answer, even if they cannot solve it without centralization of economic planning.

This thought experiment is based on an unrealistic view not only of natural history but also of the human condition and modern economics. It is based on a view of how easy the perceived human condition was before the existence of larger society.

"In prehistoric times our deal seems to have been not so bad. During the Old Stone Age (50,000 years ago) we were only few, food (game and plants) was abundant, and survival required only little working time and moderate efforts."

This period of hunter-gatherers was largely the experience of 90% of the time looking for food. It was only the emergence of sustained and coordinated agriculture requiring public works that this started to change. Modern industrialized agriculture has enabled populations not sustainable in that text and requires a larger coordination of people than a small commune can support. That text does not cover larger governance and relies on high-output lands to sustain itself, let alone others. If you cannot enable specialization, you cannot scale nor can you provide the lifestyle people are accustomed to enjoying post-WWII.

There are already communes like this everywhere and nobody is saying that you cannot start one. The only issue is people trying to force others into this system. It starts based on oppression regardless of feasibility.

So, I agree. Decentralization of the Soviets was immensely worse early after the revolution though so they centralized early. The CCP early in its creation had the same criticisms of the USSR resulting in a much longer attempt at decentralization and actual famine.

You could even combine the efforts of the individual workers unions (Soviets) and address the production and starvation issues that the union of the soviets have been experiencing... Oh wait, that's exactly what happened. This is why these arguments get dismissed out of hand. You are rewording very old arguments and claiming they are new ideas. I am not avoiding your question. I am addressing it with history.

The big difference between workers-led organizations in a consolidated capitalist system and a socialist one is worker choice and consent. In a socialist system, they have none or it fails very quickly.

You are limiting the control of production to that which the few in government decide instead of literally anyone doing it. You seem to think that ownership in the West is limited strictly to the privileged and that labor is not compensated. That is where true leftist efforts have failed throughout history. The reason that laborers, engineers, and farmers in the West consistently vote against government economic control and never revolt is because they are the most compensated in society on average. This is especially true in times of hardship. The reason why people are so invested in their system is because 66% of people own their own homes. Anyone can buy enough machinery to make things and there is a robust market for handcrafted goods competing with those that are mass-produced. Additionally, no one company controls over 30% of the market in any sector so monopolies are not an issue in the eurocentric West.

The real issue with capitalism at its base is to keep a level playing field and healthy markets. That includes banning anticompetitive behaviors and good governance along with programs (That still use contracts at their base ultimately) to address externalities. The equivalent issue on the socialist side is to centrally plan literally everything as a state-sponsored monopoly that you just trust has your best interests at heart.

A government that controls production cannot be held accountable by those who need it to survive. It is a power imbalance baked into the system at a governance level. Additionally and most importantly, there is no counter to the power of government should it start to slide away from democratic accountability beyond the dissolution of the system as a whole. This is very consistent with history.

I have so far addressed all points so I am not sure why you are suggesting that I would not. I am starting to run out of energy here though. The burden of proof should not be on the existing proven system but instead that of the proposed radical change. An example of this would be the UBI tests that are occurring in various areas. In many of ways they are failing but at least they are trying to provide some proof before forcing through changes that have already been tried and failed in multiple countries and societies throughout the last hundred years; each progressing from trying decentralization, to consolidation, to ultimately a loss of trust in society in the centralized government and change back to private ownership.