Money and property do not exist by themselves. You can grab, use, and carry things — and at other times, you may not be holding or using anything. Beyond this, concepts like "my money" or "my property" are social constructs; they exist only because society creates and enforces them.
The same society that upholds these constructs can also create others — such as human rights and the idea that everyone deserves dignity. In early societies with limited resources, survival often took precedence, and it was sometimes accepted that the old or disabled be left behind. Today, however, we have an abundance of resources — so much so that, in theory, hunger shouldn't even exist.
Yet we live under an individualistic and selfish ideology, where some argue for a return to a brutal indifference toward those in need, despite society's capacity to care for everyone. All this in the name of a self-centered ideology.
For most things, they already produce better and cheaper products. And they can buy from obter countries, It is just in US that Trump tarifs are applied.
> That seems a bit unfair to pin it on Hegel. Most of the damage could have been avoided if people like Mao were champions of liberal values. however the fact that he was in a position of power at all was because he came from a rather backwards society that didn't champion liberal values.
Considering that the "liberal values" were the ideology upon which China was previously attacked and destroyed by western powers, and that the KMT, under more liberal values did the Shangai Massacre against the comunists, ending their alliance, this would be improbable. Yeah, history show how progressive is the liberal ideology and their champions...
In Brazil, during the 80s there was a service called "telegame". A user could use an Atari 2600 cartridge connected to a modem to download games from a catalogue of 150 diferente games.
I bet that worked pretty well considering an Atari 2600 cart is 4kb. Even over a 300 baud modem with all of the encoding overhead that's about 20 seconds to download the whole thing.
Communism, as you described, is an ideal. An horizon, a direction to walk. Therefore, it never was achieved, and it is not expected to be achieved in any short term. So, it does not make sense saying that only after abandoning communism China rose. What they abandonned was a soviet flavour of socialism. Communism never existed (at least not the flavor that you described), but it is still an inspiration and source of values. Perhaps in a far future, with more technology, and without existing an upper class above a lower class this could be possible.
Comparing silly “CHINA COLLAPSE IN THREE DAYS” YouTube videos to economic analysis of observed facts, some of which I’ve pointed out, is not really a comparison, is it.
My take: at scale, "more ethical" and "less greedy" are illusions. Corporation are not people, they are systems where, to succeed at large scale, being less greedy and more ethical is detrimental. Therefore, these good corporations are filtered out. Add to this the fact that each time, you need more and more initial investment to enter a market: you need to operate in larger scale with more and more technological investments. So, as the time passes, it is also harder to have ethical corporations operating in a market.
The same society that upholds these constructs can also create others — such as human rights and the idea that everyone deserves dignity. In early societies with limited resources, survival often took precedence, and it was sometimes accepted that the old or disabled be left behind. Today, however, we have an abundance of resources — so much so that, in theory, hunger shouldn't even exist.
Yet we live under an individualistic and selfish ideology, where some argue for a return to a brutal indifference toward those in need, despite society's capacity to care for everyone. All this in the name of a self-centered ideology.