Based on capitalist hyper-growth, we're going to get rid of the gap later on.
Public.icon
Rather than "starting with communist-style ultra-equality and subsequently raising the standard of living," it might be more realistic to begin with "a capitalist-style hyper-growth and subsequently eradicate the gap." If you start with ultra-equality, you can no longer guarantee the speed and scale of the system's growth, which can result in its stagnation.
/emoji/twitter.icon If everything is made a common property, it will fall apart due to the tragedy of the commons once it exceeds the Dunbar number. However, if you appoint a manager for all assets, the authority will be too strong and can lead to dictatorship. https://t.co/0XXvgtgylq It is better to have inequality than the primitive egalitarianism, but accessible to everyone even at the bottom, such as access to convenience stores and hospitals... and then draw mental fulfillment from a source other than comparative competition. Is something like that better...?
Accelerationism on the left may have continued in the past. #Perhaps China's speed is also a capitalist-style speed, haha. We recognize that it is better to raise gross domestic product through free competition and then raise the standard of living through redistribution, rather than aiming for optimization through clever management, which we regard as an experience of history. Especially, innovation is recognized to come from the periphery.
Was the failure of socialism due to over-optimization?
If everything is made a common property, it will fall apart due to the tragedy of the commons once it exceeds the Dunbar number. However, if you appoint a manager for all assets, the authority will be too strong and can lead to dictatorship. https://t.co/0XXvgtgylq I wonder if that's possible with software or citizen communities?