Partially but there is also an information gap about perpetual violence coming out of Gaza from the region as well. Just because Israel got better at defending does not mean they are not reacting in a vacuum.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel#/media/File:Rocket_Attacks_fired_at_Israel_from_the_Gaza_Strip_by_year.png

Reliable news sources that simply take the Palestinian Authority at their word.

Exactly

I have yet to have someone provide me with a source where Hamas/PA admits that an air strike hit something other than civilians. Why would you take an organization at its word that has been shown time and time again to directly make up reality before reports are validated?

If you are wondering why there is a generational gap in support for Palestine, that’s why.

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.

Basic points that I have never seen in any book on socialism and you are yet to provide. Maybe you should be the one reading more instead of vaguely suggesting that I do. Maybe then you could provide them.

I do have an issue with those famines. Famines resulting from the taking of private property by the existing power structure are perfect examples of how government control of private property results in famine for minorities.

I would prefer to not institutionalize it. Just my opinion.

I can imagine plenty of viable alternatives. There’s plenty of arguments to be made that the USSR was just as productive as the US on a per capita basis. They addressed the productivity issues of decentralized socialism through centralization.

The issue comes down to the lack of dissent within the system. Private ownership provides a natural counterbalance to the power of the state. Even in the most ideal of democratic socialist systems, there is no functional check on the power of the majority to vote in their own benefit over minorities. Every government system regardless of its economic base has resulted in rapid expansion without a check on power, internally or externally.

You are right that I cannot imagine a viable alternative. Neither can you. You just think you have but have not addressed the core power problem. Mark Fisher is great at framing away this issue but it still exists and is the core issue with true leftist ideologies.

The think tank has forgotten how to argue with the actual left because the US democratic party is what people view as socialism. They don’t even think about you anymore because people who study history know how flawed the forcible elimination of property rights is at a conceptual and functional level.

There is nothing inherently anti-capitalist about voluntary communes or coops as long as it remain voluntary, small-scale (To ensure choice), and deferent to the rules of fair play.

The good faith card was because I had already addressed Cowbee’s points in my language. They were not reading my language. Ignoring their comment would be actually moving goalposts.

The ultimate issue with socialism is that the people are giving up economic power to the state. In a capitalist system, private ownership provides a check on the power of the state. You may claim that you are anti-state all you want but power consolidates. It does in a capitalist system as well. Government provides a check on private power there as well which is unacknowledged by you. What is the check on government power in a socialist system? What is the actual mechanism that ensures that one party does not become entrenched or the majority will not vote themselves a favorable position?

What is the recourse as a minority when the government decides you get less? What was the recourse for Muslims or Ukrainians when the party decided that Moscow was more important for food?

What is the recourse for Chinese minorities when the CCP decides enough capitalism to increase production is a benefit but not if they go against the party? (Fascism)

In a liberal system these types of events can still lead to violence and losers but there is an out for them. They have mobility and can leave the localized oppression. They purchase food from elsewhere or grow their own and not be beholden to the state.

More importantly, it provides competition and consequences for the state when it inevitably fails in some way. When the state fails in a socialist system, revolution happens because it is the only recourse. Then it is either genocide or radical change. Sure, you can say the state will never fail. Never is a long time and the state is made up of people.

The purge was not a joke and I don’t find it funny. I think your ideology should be as unwelcome as fascism because it is just as oppressive at its core economic level. From an economics and power standpoint, there is literally no difference between full government economic power and government economic power that uses corporations as proxy. Arguably, full government economic power is worse. There’s nothing inherent about socialism that says there is no racial component and you almost guarantee it when you institute majority rule and do not allow dissent.

I was making a new point. You want to force people into your system. The current system based on capitalism allows for innovation. If your system is better at a smaller level, it will succeed.

I did address the definition of left in my language. I’m sorry you are so adversarial to not be coming to this conversation in good faith.

Was the platform created by a communist or was the code created by a communist? Which instance are we on again? Should we go ahead and institute the purges early then?

Coops are perfectly allowed and acceptable in the current system. Literally no one is telling you that you cannot do this and there are many quiet communities doing it already. You simply are not going to be resourced for it unless it will provide something for the state. Neither would any corporation or sole proprietorship.

All of what you said is true but the collapse was so immediate that there was only cause. Additionally, the collapse immediately went away through collectivization. You can argue with myself and the socialist governments at the time but you are making excuses for them unasked.

I never claimed that modern leftists have not attempted to learn. The entire so called American left is a product of 60s radicals slowly realizing that the way to greater equity is through reform. It simply has capitalism at its base instead of group ownership.

Why are you on a nonprofit run economic alternative to Reddit if you don’t believe that the ultimate power in any market is consumer choice?

It is inevitable that starvation would happen because all of the systems you mention are inflexible to shocks and periods of instability and we do see this through history in socialist areas. That’s not even to mention the potential for genocide with all economic production in the control of the majority(in the most ideal circumstance)

The issue with claiming for those three systems is that it’s exactly what was attempted to set up in the USSR and under the CCP. Decentralization very quickly led to av massive collapse in production. It was swept under the rug and you don’t learn about it. Then the power consolidation started.

Even the most studied folks in the left will not make the claim that Marx was anything but a guide or an intent so don’t expect me to argue against it directly. I regret to the systems that actually developed and evolved and any recommended system should address their faults. Your three do not and I’ve not heard any that have.

Workers don’t vote themselves more work for the money. Less work equals less crops. Crops don’t care. This is why socialism as an economic base always devolves into directive work (which I would argue is actual state slavery)

There are other various options for socialism and anarchism of course. Unless you line out specifically which flawed system you propose we cannot address it. Anything that still has private ownership at it’s base is still capitalist though so most Western models such as the Nordics don’t count.

Also, corporations are not owned by one dude. This is the benefit of the corporate model over sole proprietorships at a societal level but whatever is most efficient in the end.

Notice how you are getting downvoted but no one is providing an argument against this. Even in the most directive form (fascist) of socialism, they still choose not to go with the better option for the world.