I always imagined that it was due to a higher level of computer literacy amongst the consumer population. An hour after a corpo releases a new piece of tech under a subscription model, the software has been cracked and pirated all over the net.

Buoyant green is plankton! Buoyant green is plankton!

I disagree with your point that private organizations dont go against the status quo in the US. I can’t turn on any news agency in the States without seeing headlines about where the US government is failing. and which political party is blamed for said failure depends on the bias of the news agency.

I 100% agree that news agencies are biased to their business elites in the US, but the foreign policy bias you mention is more related to that news agencies’ particular politcal leanings.

I find it hard to believe that the business elites that own news agencies are trying to sway the american peoples view of china because they feel they are losing some petty competition to make more money. We’ve seen the global opinion of china fall greatly since 2008, mostly due to how china is treating its people through strict surveilance, its attempt to control its neighbors, its use of wolfe warrior diplomacy, and increase aggression on the global stage.

You make fair and valid points, but the propaganda the US government creates does not stand alone in the american media sphere. We have the freedom to explore other ideas on the internet or purchase movies, tv shows, music, and articles from all around the world with little to no censorship. Thus, american propaganda influence faces more competition than its chinese counterpart.

Can it really be called propaganda if the information doesn’t come from the US government? China’s news outlets are state owned. America has NPR and PBS, which are not particularly popular compared to privately owned news outlets in the US.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_media_in_China#:~:text=Media in China is strictly,all controlled by the CCP.

Even at a global scale? How would communism produce enough resources to sustain the human race while doing so ethically when at the same time removing all incentives by providing free food, shelter, clothing, entertainment, and everything else for free?

That concerns me because that creates a conflict of interest if the only people who can invite or remove people from the council are other members of said council. We see in the real world that breeds nepotism and corruption and makes non-violent policy change nearly impossible. Wouldn’t it be better to allow the people to choose council members and remove them by vote when necessary?

Would that require unlimited resources and automation to guarantee that level of productivity ethically?

Who chooses when and why a leader will be removed?

Who distributes these vouchers, and how? If everyone gets everything for free, what use are these vouchers?

Under that system, all leadership would be exclusive and homogeneous, as they would all be a part of some select leadership class, not unlike the nobility class of europe. Picking people from childhood and grooming them to be leaders is no guarantee that they will be good leaders. What do we do if someone is a bad leader in this sytem?

You have to put someone in charge of distributing the goods and services, set laws to make interactions between parties fair, and divy up resources, and remove/rehabilitate criminals, and that inherently creates a power imbalance. How do you suggest we keep the leaders beholden to the governed in this system so they dont abuse this power?

So labor vouchers are money that give special treatment to people who do undesirable tasks? Or are they forced upon people at random, like a temporary forced labor lottery?

If you abolish the monetary system, how do people acquire goods and services and get compensated for their labor?

I make overnight coldbrew in a mason jar. What distro is that?