• ToyDork@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    That might be why everyone’s probably assuming I’m right-wing. I mentioned it (the highway system) with its criticisms because, while successful at remaining operational, the Chinese high speed rail system is, by virtue of being a rail system, much more efficient. It would be better if there were low-speed rail connections too, but as it is the Chinese high speed rail system is indeed a successful socialist(?)/socially-funded(?) intercity transit system. OIf course, the Chinese rail system has flaws like lines that lose billions of tax dollars every year (or rather the important part is that this says there aren’t enough riders on those routes), but the Interstates were often built through areas in the middle of nowhere b ecause it made construction companies a shitload of money.

    In short, you’re right to mention the chinese rail, “succesful” in my eyes also meant longevity along with a national scale and the highways happen to be older.

    • PosadistInevitablity [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      33
      ·
      1 year 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.

      • ToyDork@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The problem isn’t the money. Its that the money coming from fares doesn’t cover the track maintenance. Besides, my point is not the cost because you’re right on that part, but rather that…

        • The cost is probably due to lower ridership than needed to make the line useful rather than wasteful.
        • High speed rail lines are bad at low density nations/regions. So, like a fish in the air versus a panda in the air, neither rail lines nor highways actually function well in that situation, though highways are pretty crappy no matter what. The best solution is actually rural mechanization/electrification and an increase in urbanization, which - despite international impressions - has barely been done in China in favor of keeping the remaining impoverished people poor.

        Believe me, I’m aware the money isn’t the point, I’m saying that if you institute a government, even a communist one, you shouldn’t completely ignore the currency someone has on hand or spends anymore than you should rely solely on the currency someone has or spends as the primary or only measure of their importance.

        A penny versus a dollar should not define the people carrying them, but the person can usually influence the world using them, and whether you’re a selfish or benevolent bureaucrat, the ability to know what kind of influence a person is likely to exert is the entire reason we are having to discuss politics with a degree of edge in the first place; Our leadership has access to that information and STILL aren’t using it to fix things instead of filling their pockets, therefore each of us is unsatisfied. I think everyone who’s posed in this thread can at least agree on that, considering this is Lemmy.

        • PosadistInevitablity [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          19
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year 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]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      1 year 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.