Is socialism the future?

That looks well covered. Paris, London and other European cities are also well covered.

 

It's far more extensive, yes. You can get into the city from every compass point up to about 2-3 hours out, and plenty of other locations in between the compass points.

Not sure population density would be it though, since we have a lot less people! We're just very "European" when it comes to public transport. It's a really high priority, and other than those in country towns, it's considered absolutely essential by almost everyone.

 

Yes, we're very similar when it comes to public transport. EG the city pictured has trains, trams, ferries, and buses. Melbourne has trams, buses, and trains. The buses/trams/ferries fill in all the spaces between the rail lines. You can pretty much get from anywhere to anywhere via public transport, even across water.

 

We haven't even the sting out of it. In fact our best efforts have done little more than raise the poverty line to the point where people making 100k a year are living pay check to pay check and people making are choosing between rent, utilities, and groceries.

 

I wasn't sure either but I found a website that allows me to compare population density between Sydney and Miami:




So that's 2800 per square kl in Sydney compared to 1800 per square kl in Miami. So that explains why rail makes more sense in Sydney than it does in Miami.

 

Fair enough! And don't forget we also have trams, buses, and ferries

PS: The population density of Miami makes those mega freeways even harder to understand.

PPS: I note that graph shows only URBAN density. Sydney is very SUB-urban, with the vast majority living outside the city. I just checked, and it's actually around 400 per sq km in 2022.

 

Not only that, but the vast majority of train users aren't urban. So NOT those 2800 per sq km.

 

If I had to guess, I would think that the traffic congestion is related to Interstate highways running through the middle of cities. I-95 runs through Miami, and in my city, another Interstate cuts right through the city, which encourages local governments to direct traffic to interstates. Or maybe Americans just really like to drive more.

 

That's misleading because it implies only those who work in the private sector pay for it, which is not true.

Taxpayers exist both in the public and private sectors.

 

Is socialism the future?

No. eventually the voters will reject it. I'm disappointed that it is taking so long.

 

I think it would make sense in Miami too. I am surprised by Madrid vs NYC. Miami actually has a population of only 450K, so when people say Miami, they really mean Miami-Dade metro, and sometimes even Miami-Ft Lauderdale metro. The traffic here is hell, there is no escaping that fact.

A private ride is nice, but no one (NO-ONE) likes being stuck in traffic and commuting during rush hours is the primary use.

You can't reject something that doesn't exist. The GOP campaign ads down here insist that if we don't vote for them, we'll have socialist dictatorship like Cuba and all I can do is shake my head.

 

We do have some interstates cutting through cities, but they're much smaller roads. As mentioned, six lanes (total) at best. Here's one which runs through the nation's Capital:



Once you leave that city, the road reduces down to four lanes, as per:



But that's only for some stretches of some interstates. Some are like this:

 

If it doesn't collectivize production, it isn't socialist. Countries like Denmark and Sweden often have democratic socialist governments, but do not collectivize production. The could have called themselves progressives.

 

Collectivisation of production at the voluntary small scale, yes. If it's the state you're referring to, that's not socialism .. it's totalitarianism.

 

They are not democratic socialist, they are social democracies.

 

They're capitalist democracies, actually.

 

Yes I was surprised by Madrid too. That's really a city that's dependent on public transportation.

 

This perspective makes no sense to me.

One of the primary tenants of capitalism is the voluntary exchange within a open and free market.

None of thay exists in communist economies, so I'm not sure I am getting any closer to understanding your perspective.

 

Yours is ONE particular definition of socialism that relates to a socialist political system.

But anything that involves social ownership can be characterized as socialist. In a democracy many things are socially owned. Which doesn't necessarily mean that we have a socialist government. Even if our government is not socialist, Medicare IS socialist. Because it is owned by the whole of society, funded by social funds, and it's one and only purpose is to benefit those who own and fund it. "Socialism", as a political system, is a very broad term. The suffixes "-ism" and "-ist" indicate that whatever comes before is the most important element. And social benefits are the main purpose of Medicare, Social Security, the Armed Forces, public education, postal services, police departments, public infrastructure, .... ALL of them have one and only ONE purpose: to benefit the same society that pays for them. Therefore, they are socialist.

 

It's more of a philosophical exercise.

I'm really just saying that State Collectivism actually functions more like capitalism, because the elites profit from the masses.

It's the 'small-holder' capitalism of the ordinary man (property, family, community, enterprise, etc) which is actually more like voluntary collectivism - because it hinges upon shared labour and resources.

 

Some collective production is voluntary, but a lot is not. We've had an army since our revolution and that is collective production. Is our army totalitarian?

 

The think of themselves as democratic socialists.

 

It's about the economic system, not political system.

Public schools? Socialist. Fire services? Socialist. Armed forces? Socialist.

Most goods and services are produced privately. Even government contracts for private production.

I disagree. Medicare is a government program, not collective production.

Is production private or public? Medicaid supplements the incomes of indigents who require skilled nursing care, most of which is provided privately.

Social Security is a government annuity recipients spend as they see fit. Socialism? No.

 

The military is the closest iteration of bona fide state collectivism which currently exists - because a) it's voluntary, and b) it's predicated upon work-to-eat. You don't work, you're out.

 

So, you don't think the military is totalitarian?