Jordan Peterson

[DrYouth]

He lost it bc he wanted to point to economic progress and not any other quality of life examples. As if money is the only metric to show or critique a society or system.

I think the problem with Marxism is the scale at which it was attempted.
Marxism works fine at the scale of a village... in fact it's probably the ideal for small to medium sized tribal systems...
But once you pass Dunbar's number you can't really work the logistics of complete care of all members... from greatest means to greatest need... or whatever the phrase is... The free rider problem drags the system down.. there is a failure of accountability... central planning can't work on these massive scales... and there will always be those less invested in the "ideology" of love for all of the comrades who get into power and exploit the system.
So it's been tried and it's failed miserably enough times for us to basically move on.

[Smitty-48]

He lost it bc he wanted to point to economic progress and not any other quality of life examples. As if money is the only metric to show or critique a society or system.

I think the problem with Marxism is the scale at which it was attempted.
Marxism works fine at the scale of a village... in fact it's probably the ideal for small to medium sized tribal systems...
But once you pass Dunbar's number you can't really work the logistics of complete care of all members... from greatest means to greatest need... or whatever the phrase is... The free rider problem drags the system down.. there is a failure of accountability... central planning can't work on these massive scales... and there will always be those less invested in the "ideology" of love for all of the comrades who get into power and exploit the system.
So it's been tried and it's failed miserably enough times for us to basically move on.

That's not why Marxism fails.

Marxism is a Post Apocalyptic World Socialist Revolution to a Post Scarcity Utopia.

It requires a One World Government to work.

Absent the World Socialist Revolution, the Marxists fell back on Socialism in One Country.

Socialism cannot survive competition, it doesn't work unless it is unchallenged and totalitarian.

[GloryofGreece]

He lost it bc he wanted to point to economic progress and not any other quality of life examples. As if money is the only metric to show or critique a society or system.

I think the problem with Marxism is the scale at which it was attempted.
Marxism works fine at the scale of a village... in fact it's probably the ideal for small to medium sized tribal systems...
But once you pass Dunbar's number you can't really work the logistics of complete care of all members... from greatest means to greatest need... or whatever the phrase is... The free rider problem drags the system down.. there is a failure of accountability... central planning can't work on these massive scales... and there will always be those less invested in the "ideology" of love for all of the comrades who get into power and exploit the system.
So it's been tried and it's failed miserably enough times for us to basically move on.

I don't disagree and I also think Zizek did a better job at pointing out the problems of our current age. Discontent is real and not just about people mostly being bitter.

[Smitty-48]

When you invoke Stalin as the far right of the far left, that is essentially correct.

The right flank of the Communists is called Socialism in One Country.

Now referred to by the euphemistic Democratic Socialism.

[Smitty-48]

Thus why China and Vietnam are still Communists even tho they do business to stay afloat.

That is Socialism in One Country.

The Soviets did it to, the USSR was propped up by the US dollar as much as a China is now.

They simply spent themselves into the dirt with a 50% GDP military budget.

[DBTrek]

He lost it bc he wanted to point to economic progress and not any other quality of life examples. As if money is the only metric to show or critique a society or system.

I think the problem with Marxism is the scale at which it was attempted.
Marxism works fine at the scale of a village... in fact it's probably the ideal for small to medium sized tribal systems...
But once you pass Dunbar's number you can't really work the logistics of complete care of all members... from greatest means to greatest need... or whatever the phrase is... The free rider problem drags the system down.. there is a failure of accountability... central planning can't work on these massive scales... and there will always be those less invested in the "ideology" of love for all of the comrades who get into power and exploit the system.
So it's been tried and it's failed miserably enough times for us to basically move on.

As Fife has mentioned many times - moral hazard. It bears repeating. It’s a carry simple concept that easily demonstrates the downfall of socialism.

When people have no skin in the game, they act accordingly. Under various forms of socialism, citizens are able to act as reckless, wasteful, or risky as possible because they will never bear the costs. There is no limiting incentive.
/shrug

[Smitty-48]

He lost it bc he wanted to point to economic progress and not any other quality of life examples. As if money is the only metric to show or critique a society or system.

I think the problem with Marxism is the scale at which it was attempted.
Marxism works fine at the scale of a village... in fact it's probably the ideal for small to medium sized tribal systems...
But once you pass Dunbar's number you can't really work the logistics of complete care of all members... from greatest means to greatest need... or whatever the phrase is... The free rider problem drags the system down.. there is a failure of accountability... central planning can't work on these massive scales... and there will always be those less invested in the "ideology" of love for all of the comrades who get into power and exploit the system.
So it's been tried and it's failed miserably enough times for us to basically move on.

As Fife has mentioned many times - moral hazard. It bears repeating. It’s a carry simple concept that easily demonstrates the downfall of socialism.

When people have no skin in the game, they act accordingly. Under various forms of socialism, citizens are able to act as reckless, wasteful, or risky as possible because they will never bear the costs. There is no limiting incentive.
/shrug

The solution is Spartan UBI

Militarized NIT.

Space Soldiering.

Serve the Supreme Allied Commander.

Eagle One is a Starship.

[DBTrek]

Doesn’t solve moral hazard in the least.

[Smitty-48]

Doesn’t solve moral hazard in the least.

Neither did World War Two.

Neither did the Cold War.

It was all Spartan UBI.

The Moonshot was not humanitarian.

It was the permanent war.

King Dollah and the Pentagon and trickle down from there to the districts.

[Smitty-48]

What's the difference now?

Sub 4% military spending.

The military/NASA budget needs to be three times what it is now.

Raise the debt ceiling.

Only then does it trickle down.

Otherwise America runs cool, there's not enough heat to underpin the American Dream.

The New Deal didn't work.

The thing that made the Hegenomy was and is Spartan UBI.