"Market Socialism" can mean different things though.
You can have Welfare capitalism.
You can have Corporatism(in the classical sense).
You can have Capitalism with regulations.
You can have Market where every firm is a co-op.
You can have Market where every firm is part of a guild.
You can have a free market where property is based on occupancy and use.
So what type of "Market Socialism" do you mean?
Not op but I think the most sensible form of Market Socialism that isn't essentially just a mixed economy with radical aesthetics is a market where every firm is a co-op and also a part of a congress of industrial trade unions ala Daniel DeLeon (literal who I know, but his model is the most reasonable model that could mesh with a market economy imo). This being sensible in my view, because technological developments have already led to central planning of a sort within firms in a capitalist economy. This plus yimby upzoning and a Georgist LVT.
I mean yeah pretty much. Problem is quite frankly the people who espouse such ideas lack any charisma and know how, so I don't know that anything like what I described is actually feasible barring historical circumstances which make such a system come about through gradual reforms unwittingly.
By far the most successful system we've had was that in the US after abolishing slavery and it wasn't socialism.
Currently we have only socialist countries (plus a few pure moron communist enclaves) so what do you expect.
grug in 300 AD: >why the most successful system is a feudal slavery?
>the most successful system we've had was that in the US
Unplanned suburbs:
1. more need for traffic roads (cities get demolished)
2. shitton of taxation for electricity and sewage for so few houses per km^2 -> people get poorer and abandon cities (that get demolished)
3. car becomes obligatory (getting to work/shop/etc. takes shitton of time)
4. mentally depressive surroundings (the same fricking house everywhere, on and on, without end...)
This is what you get, if you let capitalism run amok.
>3. car becomes obligatory (getting to work/shop/etc. takes shitton of time)
This one right here actually isn't true. Much to the chagrin of traingays >4. mentally depressive surroundings (the same fricking house everywhere, on and on, without end...)
The only people who actually hate suburban surroundings have never actually lived in one
>isn't true
https://www.aecf.org/blog/exploring-americas-food-deserts
There are literally areas in US, where people live in starvation, because cars don't bother to drive there.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
"Transportation challenges — Low-income families are less likely to have reliable transportation, which can prevent residents from traveling longer distances to buy groceries."
"Added risks — Opening a supermarket or grocery store chain is an investment risk, and this risk can grow to prohibitive proportions in lower-income neighborhoods."
cities are designed piss-poorly:
7:34-8:00
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
"Transportation challenges — Low-income families are less likely to have reliable transportation, which can prevent residents from traveling longer distances to buy groceries."
"Added risks — Opening a supermarket or grocery store chain is an investment risk, and this risk can grow to prohibitive proportions in lower-income neighborhoods."
cities are designed piss-poorly:
7:34-8:00
You're overgeneralizing right now. Food deserts exist in the US but its disingenuous to claim its the norm or endemic to American urban design in general. Evidently that isn't the case. You can post as many YouTube links as you want but its in complete contrast to real world evidence so you'd be wasting your time.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>but its disingenuous to claim its the norm
seems like quite a large chunk of map to me
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
That's literally just a population density map anon, hardly anyone lives in these regions to begin with. Bad faith argument if you're trying to imply that's the norm
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>people live in starvation, because cars don't bother to drive there.
Thats....thats not how that works...
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
"Transportation challenges — Low-income families are less likely to have reliable transportation, which can prevent residents from traveling longer distances to buy groceries."
"Added risks — Opening a supermarket or grocery store chain is an investment risk, and this risk can grow to prohibitive proportions in lower-income neighborhoods."
cities are designed piss-poorly:
7:34-8:00
>Opening a supermarket or grocery store chain is an investment risk
No truck with food would arrive there.
And if you don't have a car, you won't arrive to any place with food.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
People drive and build grocery stores where there's a market. If its an investment risk its because its an underdeveloped region. Its an underdeveloped region because nobody wants to live there
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>People drive and build grocery stores where there's a market.
Correct. Why *isn't* there a market? Because morons built their towns this way. Too fricking wide-spread, and a car became your obligatory life-support machine.
This is what you get, when you let capitalism run amok.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
People have their own reasons for wanting to live in these regions though, regardless of market forces. If they wanted convenience they could just go to a city
Communism has never worked which is quite different and aims to abolish private property
China isn't market socialism it's mercantilism and has backing from America-based israelites.
Well no wonder I don’t like tribe members
"Market Socialism" can mean different things though.
You can have Welfare capitalism.
You can have Corporatism(in the classical sense).
You can have Capitalism with regulations.
You can have Market where every firm is a co-op.
You can have Market where every firm is part of a guild.
You can have a free market where property is based on occupancy and use.
So what type of "Market Socialism" do you mean?
Not op but I think the most sensible form of Market Socialism that isn't essentially just a mixed economy with radical aesthetics is a market where every firm is a co-op and also a part of a congress of industrial trade unions ala Daniel DeLeon (literal who I know, but his model is the most reasonable model that could mesh with a market economy imo). This being sensible in my view, because technological developments have already led to central planning of a sort within firms in a capitalist economy. This plus yimby upzoning and a Georgist LVT.
Sounds like Syndicalism to me, which is my least-hated form of socialism.
I mean yeah pretty much. Problem is quite frankly the people who espouse such ideas lack any charisma and know how, so I don't know that anything like what I described is actually feasible barring historical circumstances which make such a system come about through gradual reforms unwittingly.
go back to
hoitroony
Black person wtf are you on about? not even that anon but your brain is fried
How would this save the White race?
If you implement my stated economic reforms I'll go back. Deal?
>socialist thief is a non-white parasite
Like pottery
Idk I've met more white ones myself but whatever, I tried
Why would you leave out the most important part?
>with Chinese characteristics
Forgot my pic
Triads were a big problem for a long time in China itself.
That system being?
By far the most successful system we've had was that in the US after abolishing slavery and it wasn't socialism.
Currently we have only socialist countries (plus a few pure moron communist enclaves) so what do you expect.
grug in 300 AD:
>why the most successful system is a feudal slavery?
>the most successful system we've had was that in the US
Unplanned suburbs:
1. more need for traffic roads (cities get demolished)
2. shitton of taxation for electricity and sewage for so few houses per km^2 -> people get poorer and abandon cities (that get demolished)
3. car becomes obligatory (getting to work/shop/etc. takes shitton of time)
4. mentally depressive surroundings (the same fricking house everywhere, on and on, without end...)
This is what you get, if you let capitalism run amok.
>Unplanned
un-pre-planned
fix
>3. car becomes obligatory (getting to work/shop/etc. takes shitton of time)
This one right here actually isn't true. Much to the chagrin of traingays
>4. mentally depressive surroundings (the same fricking house everywhere, on and on, without end...)
The only people who actually hate suburban surroundings have never actually lived in one
>isn't true
https://www.aecf.org/blog/exploring-americas-food-deserts
There are literally areas in US, where people live in starvation, because cars don't bother to drive there.
"Transportation challenges — Low-income families are less likely to have reliable transportation, which can prevent residents from traveling longer distances to buy groceries."
"Added risks — Opening a supermarket or grocery store chain is an investment risk, and this risk can grow to prohibitive proportions in lower-income neighborhoods."
cities are designed piss-poorly:
7:34-8:00
You're overgeneralizing right now. Food deserts exist in the US but its disingenuous to claim its the norm or endemic to American urban design in general. Evidently that isn't the case. You can post as many YouTube links as you want but its in complete contrast to real world evidence so you'd be wasting your time.
>but its disingenuous to claim its the norm
seems like quite a large chunk of map to me
That's literally just a population density map anon, hardly anyone lives in these regions to begin with. Bad faith argument if you're trying to imply that's the norm
>people live in starvation, because cars don't bother to drive there.
Thats....thats not how that works...
>Opening a supermarket or grocery store chain is an investment risk
No truck with food would arrive there.
And if you don't have a car, you won't arrive to any place with food.
People drive and build grocery stores where there's a market. If its an investment risk its because its an underdeveloped region. Its an underdeveloped region because nobody wants to live there
>People drive and build grocery stores where there's a market.
Correct. Why *isn't* there a market? Because morons built their towns this way. Too fricking wide-spread, and a car became your obligatory life-support machine.
This is what you get, when you let capitalism run amok.
People have their own reasons for wanting to live in these regions though, regardless of market forces. If they wanted convenience they could just go to a city