← Back to context

Comment by poetaster

7 hours ago

I wonder about the failure of the PRC while heaving 500 million out of poverty the last 50 years. Interesting failure mode.

PRC isn't communist.

But then USSR wasn't really communist either, it was far more defined by dictatorship of individuals; which is diametrically opposed to communism.

If you have people living in palaces whilst others starve then you don't have communism - the first principle of which is that benefit of labour is split under egalitarian principles. Whilst rich people getting richer, and the devaluing of people typifies capitalism.

From my considerations, we need to limit wage disparity, eg by a top rate of tax at 100% (I know how that will be received here!). That limits power that can be accrued through wealth too - no more billionaires who can by elections. We also need to give ownership of the benefits of labour to the people; wage limits does that, but a more direct link is possible too and that can aid transition from Western Capitalism to a more equal distribution of wealth. Ultimately, globally we're going to face far more issues with migration as the effects of our past excesses take hold; redistribution of wealth across nations also needs to be accepted if we're going to manage that transition with less war and bloodshed.

  • I thought it was all about who owns the means of production. I guess it was palaces and poverty all along; learned something new.