So what you're saying is that a company doing shitty things for profit is not at all related to a system that incentives profit above everything else? Interesting take
How would a socialist or communist system decide who gets a hotel room in this scenario? Declaring something as free or public doesn't magically give us infinite resources.
Answering genuinely, assuming the question is in good faith --
Socialist theory typically handles luxuries of limited quantity in a few ways.
One, if there's demand, try to increase the quantity. Could we have more racing fill the gap? Maybe not, as an F1 fan I understand this might not be possible.
Two, could we apportion it via lottery? There's lots of styles of lottery, from random chance to chances derived from some characteristic (e.g. maybe you can get some lottery tickets based on productivity).
Three, queues -- maybe you can't be one of the hundred thousands who go this year, but everyone who did go has to wait their turn before going again.
Four, don't offer it. Some luxuries maybe don't exist in a society built on the concept of wellbeing for all. I think there would still be racing, but maybe there wouldn't be superyachts or many private jets. This is definitely not the preferred outcome -- luxuries make life wonderful, but if they are really really hard to share, maybe we should put more time in to things that are easier to share.
Five, markets and trade. Markets can exist under socialism, though many socialists consider them unpalatable. Capitalism is a specific type of market economy. There are non capitalist ways to run markets.
Six, corruption. The powerful and their guests get to attend. I'd argue this is what we have today under capitalism today as well. We just derive power from money, not government positions.
True! Thankfully under Socialism there wouldn't be a Grand Prix in the first place, and the Hotel would be government-run and only house Party members during special events anyway.
I think you might be under informed... this is how authoritarian communism has worked, historically. But Socialism covers a massive umbrella of different ideas beyond just authcom ideas. Social democracy, democratic socialism, anarchism, syndicalism, authoritarian single party rule, council communism, etc etc.
Socialism also isn't the only system that isn't capitalism either. Capitalism is a relatively recent invention, perhaps 300 years old.
glitchc|3 months ago
powerclue|3 months ago
conradojordan|3 months ago
francisofascii|3 months ago
conradojordan|3 months ago
unknown|3 months ago
[deleted]
hypeatei|3 months ago
powerclue|3 months ago
Socialist theory typically handles luxuries of limited quantity in a few ways.
One, if there's demand, try to increase the quantity. Could we have more racing fill the gap? Maybe not, as an F1 fan I understand this might not be possible.
Two, could we apportion it via lottery? There's lots of styles of lottery, from random chance to chances derived from some characteristic (e.g. maybe you can get some lottery tickets based on productivity).
Three, queues -- maybe you can't be one of the hundred thousands who go this year, but everyone who did go has to wait their turn before going again.
Four, don't offer it. Some luxuries maybe don't exist in a society built on the concept of wellbeing for all. I think there would still be racing, but maybe there wouldn't be superyachts or many private jets. This is definitely not the preferred outcome -- luxuries make life wonderful, but if they are really really hard to share, maybe we should put more time in to things that are easier to share.
Five, markets and trade. Markets can exist under socialism, though many socialists consider them unpalatable. Capitalism is a specific type of market economy. There are non capitalist ways to run markets.
Six, corruption. The powerful and their guests get to attend. I'd argue this is what we have today under capitalism today as well. We just derive power from money, not government positions.
istultus|3 months ago
powerclue|3 months ago
Socialism also isn't the only system that isn't capitalism either. Capitalism is a relatively recent invention, perhaps 300 years old.