[jimbokun]

It certainly has to be considered.

China and the Soviet Union are the largest scale attempts to implement a cooperative system and they failed in spectacular and tragic ways. So you certainly need to consider why the new plan will be different and won’t meet the same fate.

[HWR_14]

China failed? They seem to be doing well to me.

[jimbokun]

Their Communist system failed. They experienced increasing prosperity when they adopted capitalism.

[weakfish]

"Cooperative system" is such an immensely broad net. I could also say that the largest scale attempt ever at implementing a competitive system failed when the market crashed in 2008, so you probably shouldn't try starting a company again. But that would be silly, wouldn't it?

For whatever it's worth, I'm not a communist or a Soviet apologist or what have you. I also just think it's incredibly silly that Westerners are so conditioned to jump at the hint of the Soviet's shadow when there's any suggestion that capitalism might not be the most effective economic system.

The common counterpoint to that is "capitalism isn't perfect, but it's the best we got!" And maybe I'm naive, but I can't help but think humans can do way better. Isn't capitalism supposed to be a bet on human ingenuity? Then why do we pretend that humans are inherently limited when it comes to creating a good society?

[jimbokun]

I’m not saying you can’t argue for more cooperative systems. I’m saying you better be prepared to explain why your proposed system will work better than Soviet and Chinese communist systems when asked if you want to be taken seriously.

[weakfish]

Right, but my point is that I think that being the baseline requirement is silly. I get why that reaction exists, but I think it's over-fitting. Like I said before, cooperative is so broad.