A couple of those things "everyone should know" are downright wrong and hateful.
It's fair that you'd perceive it this way, but that's not exactly what I mean. The missing word is "regulated". Again, I'll break it down more tomorrow (I am going to bed) but my ideal structure is one that publicly govern, supports, and maintains all of the "means of production" (e.g. highways, police, fire, healthcare, retirement funds, labor law, etc.) so that an actual free market economy can operate, but also do so without monopolistic consolidation. Another way I have referred to it when I was trying to make this case as part of my thesis 20 years ago in college is a "Guided free market economy".
I think we're on the same page with the "frictions", and I think you're fair in saying there are likely solutions to those frictions and the concerns I've posed. Honestly, that's what I focus on with regard to most forms of government. It is a very hard problem to solve, no matter what system you employ. I think the discussion is around which are more/less vulnerable to these forms of "decay".
Let me put some more thought into this overnight and happy to keep this conversation going in a more thoughtful reply. Consider this a placeholder for now, but I sincerely appreciate you taking the time and having a civil conversation. Sometimes I forget I'm not on Reddit and not everyone is A) A bot or B) Already angry.
I don't think it's all that easy to break down communism truly in a comment, but at it's core I would envision a system where all property and means of production are publicly held and workers are paid for their labor either equally across the system, or devised equally by job or job type. Obviously, it's not as simple as that but I'm trying to not turn this into a full blown political theory conversation at midnight on a Wednesday.
For what it's worth, I don't hate communism conceptually. I understand and respect its intended purpose. I believe it's prone to failure, not unlike most systems, over time. I think my biggest concern boils down to how these systems are governed. I may be wrong with respect to this, and you may have something to share that I haven't considered before or may be thinking about the wrong way.
My concern in governance is communist systems typically fall to two ends of a broader spectrum. Either the system is entirely disparate and localized in authority and governance, or it is overly centralized. Both are prone to corruption and challenges in effective decision making to varying degrees. I think either end of this becomes problematic quickly when local governing structures are incapable of making decisions that are critical to wider areas (bottom up), or when an overly centralized system is only able to govern at the macro level (top down) and unable to see the minutiae of what is happening locally, or what impacts macro policy decisions may have down the chain.
I'd say I am reasonably well versed on what communism actually is, and it's not my version of an ideal system. No argument to anyone who feels otherwise, just saying you can be perfectly well educated on what it is and still not think it's a terrific idea. Some form of well regulated socialized capitalism is more in line with what I'd envision as an ideal system. In all cases, though, it's really hard to prevent even the most idealized systems from going to shit given enough time. Greed and power are like the rust of political ideology.
The best badminton player isn't going to make a living the way the best football players in England can. That's just how sports work, and it isn't even capitalism. This is how it works everywhere. I say that as someone who used to be a nationally ranked competitive bocce player. I never made enough money to quit my day job, but I did make the qualifying team for the US in 2008 if Beijing ended up picking us up. I have been to the world championships twice though. Didn't make a penny unless I melt down my medals. It's frustrating, but that's just how sports work if they aren't among the few that really make money.
Whoa what a throwback
Most of the sports in the Olympics aren't really money makers. That's more or less always been the case. Many athletes train while working fulltime. Maybe it's good OF and things like it provide another outlet. Some countries fund their athletes, and others don't. If anyone is upset about people making a fortune off of it, you can always stop supporting it.
Where do you think they got the idea from? It's exactly what Vault-Tec did.
Adding insult to injury, "freeing" a country that already freely elected and supported terrorists as leaders.
This is extremely helpful! Thank you for the insight.
He's borderline the ideal version of what a family man looks like even in their own version of reality. He's a white independently successful retired military, churchgoing, family man. Good luck with that one, couch fuckers.
Most young people don't know what's going on either with all the celebrities. Everything has just become so niche. You could have a popular streamer with 10M+ subscribers and interview 100 people on the street under 18 and nobody knows who they are.
How do creators generate income? Is it just Patreon type stuff? YouTube is probably one of the few services I actually don't hate using other than its terrible algorithm.
Why wait? I am sure she'd appreciate being an inspiration to another.
And the more I read the more fired up I get. I have liked Walz for a while but just been spending more time reading deeper into his background, experience, and policy positions. Feels like he'll really help drive the campaign and align to a lot of the wider progressive objectives.
I wanted Kelly, but I'd be pretty happy with Walz. Shapiro would just take the wind out of the sails.