Capitalism at its core is about ownership, in that those with money own a thing and thus make the decisions. This results in an Oligarchy controlling the market.

Communism in contrast is about collective ownership in that those that produce, own and make the decisions. However in practice, that ownership get usurped by "the state" which basically translates to an oligarchy through control of the market.

This is why I like the term, free market socialism. Ownership should be held by the producers, but the state should not control the market. The role of government in the market should be limited to monopoly prevention.

[–] emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works 3 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

The state ownership of production is deliberate, and aimed at improving efficiency and allowing forward planning. One (or a few, if you want competition) large factory is more efficient than a bunch of smaller workshops. State ownership can lead to corruption, as you pointed out, but it is a conscious choice and not happenstance.

[–] SapphironZA@sh.itjust.works 2 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

I would argue that state facilitation is superior to state control.

A small government that does not interfere with the initiative of individuals and groups.

You don't need central control and orchistration when you have our level of communication technology. That's only required when your communication channels are limited.

The state at national level should be limited to providing facilitation, infrastructure, defence and foreign policy. Independent Local governments should provide the bulk of public services.

I trust collective decision making a lot more than central decision making for optimising a system.

[–] emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works 2 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

State ownership has both advantages and disadvantages; I just wanted to point out that it was a deliberate choice.

The state at national level should be limited to providing facilitation, infrastructure, defence and foreign policy. Independent Local governments should provide the bulk of public services.

What do you do when some regions are poorer than others, or one gets hit by a natural disaster? Again, it isn't black and white. There are advantages to both centralisation and devolution.

[–] SapphironZA@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 hours ago

I agree never a one size fits all situation. I do not have much confidence in central planning, since that has the longest track record in failure. Both in governments and in corporations.

A natural disaster would be handled by regional or national disaster response agencies. Much like it is now in western countries.

Regarding wealth or resource imbalance between poorer and richer areas, this is where I think the current status quo is the problem. Since after the industrial revolution, the high productivity of cities has been subsidizing the wealth of the suburbs and rural areas to the significant detriment of overall productivity.

We need to rethink the infrastructure standards outside of cities. Right now the suburb sprawl of single homes with large yards, malls and massive parking lots and roads are utterly unsustainable.

Its are hampering the productive capacity, food quality and security provided by rural land. What this looks like is a lot like older european villages. People live relatively densely surrounded by farmland and pasture. Car ownership is low since you can walk or bike anywhere, or there is a tram or bus to where you need to go. I would also point out that much of this infrastructure was developed and maintained locally with little to no central government.

Once you stop the subsidization and change the role to be something more sustainable, you will find that the wealth and productive density per person will balance according to the inherit environmental factors to a much larger degree.

I also want to highlight is that a lack of central control and planning does not prevent collaboration and coordination from occuring between entities. Our modern communication technology makes this possible to a degree that the founders of socialism and communism could never have anticipated.

Much like industrialization has changed the world order, the communication revolution has done the same. The political and economic sciences are still playing catchup.