this post was submitted on 21 Oct 2023
1956 points (97.3% liked)

Technology

58143 readers
5618 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] VinnieFarsheds@lemmy.world 18 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Because they think government is inefficient by default, and a commercial business is motivated towards max efficiency to cut costs. Maybe all of this is true, but in capitalism companies also sell for the optimal price based on price elasticity. No competitors + essential live saving product = high prices.

[–] vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Actually in human societies, not just in capitalism.

People talk about capitalism being bad as if only there people try to eat each other to become richer.

If you read something about reasons the USSR wouldn't have more efficient centralized planning, while having necessary machinery and resources, or why it wouldn't have standardized something, while having the standardization apparatus and planned economy, or why all the Internet-like projects went nowhere in USSR while being much more ambitious due to, again, planned economy, or why despite less fragmentation scale wouldn't make things cheaper to produce in USSR, but the opposite, and so on - that's because every reform would mean someone losing influence, and that someone would naturally use that influence to resist reform.

It's actually fascinating to read how some of those people really believed in Marxism and Communism, and were even very competent sometimes, but the general architecture made the whole thing less than just a sum of its parts. Really sad, though.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I agree that the problems aren't just in Capitalism. However, the country with the unofficial historical tagline, "and then it got worse", may not be the best example. I think China is a really good example of influence peddling outside a free market.

[–] vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 11 months ago

Well, China, when its ruling organization still had some consistent ideology, was a copy of Stalin's USSR, bigger and weaker, give or take. Only it started later.

Its way off that track started with reforms like Kosygin's reforms, would those not be neutered.

I'd say the reason in China this happened was exactly that it was bigger and weaker. It didn't quite have anything like Soviet industrial establishment, and it had the issues of poverty, hunger etc.