• emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    7 hours ago

    The state ownership of production is deliberate, and aimed at improving efficiency and allowing forward planning. One (or a few, if you want competition) large factory is more efficient than a bunch of smaller workshops. State ownership can lead to corruption, as you pointed out, but it is a conscious choice and not happenstance.

    • SapphironZA@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 hours ago

      I would argue that state facilitation is superior to state control.

      A small government that does not interfere with the initiative of individuals and groups.

      You don’t need central control and orchistration when you have our level of communication technology. That’s only required when your communication channels are limited.

      The state at national level should be limited to providing facilitation, infrastructure, defence and foreign policy. Independent Local governments should provide the bulk of public services.

      I trust collective decision making a lot more than central decision making for optimising a system.

      • emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        State ownership has both advantages and disadvantages; I just wanted to point out that it was a deliberate choice.

        The state at national level should be limited to providing facilitation, infrastructure, defence and foreign policy. Independent Local governments should provide the bulk of public services.

        What do you do when some regions are poorer than others, or one gets hit by a natural disaster? Again, it isn’t black and white. There are advantages to both centralisation and devolution.