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.

I literally don’t believe that you ever were involved in any level of requirements analysis or weapons programs.

Why is it that in your world NASA and the military are in no way linked? I’ve worked in defense procurement. Literally every time you mention defense procurement the core technologies were developed through NASA contracts and proof of concepts.

The reason I’m not sending you proof is because you aren’t worth the time. These things are a matter of public record. You are so far off base that there is literally nothing I can send you that will pull your head out of the sand.

Technology absolutely has reduced CO2 emissions on a per capita basis when applied. That is a categorically and demonstratively false statement in several different ways. Electric vehicles were only made viable using 1970s NASA battery technology developments. They are significantly more carbon efficient than internal combination engines over their lifetime accounting for production and raw materials.

https://www.arpa-e.energy.gov/sites/default/files/documents/files/Miller_RANGE_Kickoff_2014.pdf

That’s not to mention the solar technologies developed by NASA to power the things.

The level of ignorance required to come to your conclusions is only surpassed by the required level of arrogance to not bother looking it up.

I’m referencing modern insulation, not spray foam. Additionally, NASA and it’s prior organization was founded to develop aerospace technologies like spray foam. It literally counts as well.

The CO2 saved through the technologies required at scale will be worth a lot more CO2.

I’m glad you mentioned the military technologies because it is still relevant as we pivot to counter China in space. NASA is a significant part of that not only in industrial scale but also technologies critical to intelligence.

The insulation tech developed by the original NASA program is used in every household in the western world. The current electrification effort wouldn’t be close to possible without the original Apollo and Mercury programs and the advancements required to go to the moon and Mars in the current effort will enable not only the development of an industrial base to support the rapid roll out of green improvements but make it more economical for the market.

It’s a win win for anyone regardless of left right politics in the end. Not only the above, in the current political climate, what programs are you suggesting would do the same? Are they funded? Read the room dude. This is literally our only chance. You have the absolute worst possible take and you should stop because you make it less politically viable.

Do you disagree concerning what would motivate you or the average person in the world? I’m answering based on the latter.

Unironically yes, I do believe that. Space exploration is a worthy endeavor in and of itself and takes up a fraction of the budget.

That’s called a private plane these days and it costs the equivalent.

It doesn’t reward it anymore than even local government control over resources. You act like nobody has ever tried to get out of a speeding ticket or fake their way to impress their lead.

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.