• Tankiedesantski [he/him]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    3510 months ago

    Even by you’d definition of “socialism” being public infrastructure spending, how is the US highway system more successful than the Chinese High Speed Rail system?

      • PosadistInevitablity [he/him]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        3310 months ago

        Lines losing money is implying that the point of the lines is to make money. That is so staggeringly uninformed and capitalist minded it blows me away.

        I will shock you by informing you most fish are bad at flying.

        Turns out, that’s not what they were made for.

          • PosadistInevitablity [he/him]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            19
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            My brother in Christ, China has urbanized faster than any society in human history. They build entire cities and then move people in once they’re finished.

            The people pay to maintain the rails through taxes, failing to “recoup the maintenance” just means the lines are subsidized.

            By that logic if they charged no fee to use them, it would be infinitely wasteful…

            Which, by the way, have you noticed most highways are free to use? Does that not make them money losers?

            So are parks, and sidewalks.

            I’ve never seen them criticized as wasteful. The point is not to make money with them.

      • GarbageShoot [he/him]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1810 months ago

        but as it is the Chinese high speed rail system is indeed a successful socialist(?)/socially-funded(?) intercity transit system.

        It’s funny to call America’s highways socialist and then hedge your phrasing against China’s rail system.

        More genuinely, would you like me to go through the Marxian conception of socialism in a non-combative way? It looks like you’re doing your best but just aren’t familiar with the topic.