Dear Jeff Bezos, instead of firing me, protect your workers from coronavirus

Huge indictment of capitalism that we have an unbelievably high level of productive capacity and can't do any of these things: make hospital equipment including ventilators; produce enough masks; keep hospitals open (there has been a steady trend of closures brought on by financialization (profiteering) and mergers); train adequate numbers of hospital staff; and the most ridiculous so far is every business is desperately trying to stay open even for non-essential things, like Amazon.

Profiteering is undercutting every possible thing. The profit motive over a democratically planned economy is horrible most of the time but really becomes a mess in a crisis.

> The profit motive over a democratically planned economy is horrible most of the time but really becomes a mess in a crisis.

Why not have bread lines only in a crisis, when you can have them all the time instead?

This comment is very ignorant about:

1. how often capitalism has bread lines in countries economically linked to, but outside of, the US and other rich capitalist countries, in the "global south";

2. the fact that bread lines in "socialist" (but not actually socialist) countries like Venezuela are in large part due to US policy and sanctions, and are over-reported anyway;

and 3. the fact that socialism has never been tried in a fair way because it is an existential threat to the wealth of people like Jeff Bezos, who prefer to strangle it in the cradle instead.

But thank you for regurgitating the ignorant "bread lines!" trope when there are actual, literal bread lines in the US right now!

> But thank you for regurgitating the ignorant "bread lines!" trope when there are actual, literal bread lines in the US right now!

I am aware that there are actual bread lines right now, as implied by my original statement.

Of course, the bread lines we are facing has more to do with (at present) a rapid shock in demand, rather than actual food shortages.

Whereas in actual historical socialist countries (like Soviet Russia, East Germany, etc.) did actually have shortages on a regular basis.

> the fact that socialism has never been tried in a fair way because it is an existential threat to the wealth of people like Jeff Bezos, who prefer to strangle it in the cradle instead.

There is no notion more riddled with folly and arrogance that "socialism has never properly been tried". That the USSR was defeated and China was bullied into submission by the likes of a few wealthy corporations is nonsense.

You're still being disingenuous because you aren't dealing with the point he was actually making.

His point was that capitalism's optimization function steered us in the direction whereby most of our "wealth" in this country is derived from the assumption of intact and normal flowing international supply chains to fuel the engine of consumerism instead of being based on the actual capability to produce and deliver finished product from raw material in a time of crisis or otherwise.

Globalism has spelled doom in the sense that we haven't been making sure to maintain our own industrial capability, while instead raking in as much "capital" return by exploiting the wage gap found internationally. Yet as soon as that decision bit us in the ass, our capability as a lone nation to take care of our owm has essentially been sold off to the lowest bidder elsewhere, who is now more than happy to turn around and hold said resources hostage as diplomatic leverage.

But no, please. Yet another entertaining and predictable rant about the socialist boogeyman would be great. Has the bonus of distracting from the actual problem as well, so kills two birds with one stone. /s

I'm so tired of hearing people hit stop points over capitalism vs. the merest notion that a nation should have some level of influence over the market and industrial infrastructure it maintains in the interests it's own security.

0x is absolutely fucking right. Unrestrained capitalism encourages selling the jewels right out from under the nation that is dependent and instrumental to the very jewel's existence. No goddamn pile of dollar bills or IOU's is capable of taking the place of actual, physical, manufacturing capability ready to go, unreliant on unreliable trade partners in a time of crisis. It's a case of personal safety, writ large.

The fantasy of a world pacified through economic interdependence was a bloody sham from the beginning, made even worse by the vices of the ultra-wealthy, and exacerbated even more by the aspirations of the swathes of temporarily inconvenienced billionaires that seek to figure out how to get on top of the carriage one day so maybe they get their turn at playing the part of the "Invisible Hand".

So I counter your Socialist boogeyman once again with "look at where your Global Capitalist paradise got you: Diplomatic tensions through the roof, your primary economic rival holding most of the relevant industrial cards; an isolated population, paralyzed by a virus you can do nil about because you sold/didn't build the factories, a collapsing economy, and in the same breadlines the "Socialists" you so despise are in".

So quit the bloody rhetorical posturing. It's all been said and it does nothing to help with the problems at hand. The country needs to industrially mobilize once more: without the crutch of foreign powers oh so eager to provide a workforce on the condition we show them how to build the actually challenging bits and leave all the physical assets with them, to be held hostage the first time things get tough.

I have no grudge against the Chinese or anyone else at the moment. We're all in this pandemic, so they're going to do what hi.ans do and look after themselves. If anything,I'm more pissed off that my own country which so pounds the drum of being responsible and self-sufficient has been on the global trade dole to the point it's forgotten how to pick itself up and go without squabbling over who gets the contract, and how hard can I screw my workers.

As 0x262d has pointed out to you, they are a literal Marxist[0]. You are projecting your positions (some of which I would agree, and did not argue with) onto them.

I am arguing against 0x262d's actual, explicit, literal Marxism.

[0]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22773948

> I am arguing against 0x262d's actual, explicit, literal Marxism.

0x262d's positions actually seem pretty reasonable and interesting, though we'd probably find disagreement if we got deeper into details.

I don't know much about Marxism, but I do know it's broader and more varied than some strawman desire for a Soviet Union Part Deux. I also think it will be possible to transcend capitalism without disaster, and libertarians have done a good job convincing me that's a worthy topic to think about and a worthy goal to work towards.

So you do acknowledge that, contrary to your initial claim, 0x262d was in fact arguing for central planning?

> So you do acknowledge that, contrary to your initial claim, 0x262d was in fact arguing for central planning?

No, because that wasn't my original claim. My position was that we explore how he understands the concept of "democratically planned economy" rather than jumping to Soviet conclusions. It's really all in the details.