3 ms·
I suppose you were either there and knew what it entailed or are clear on your facts? The Soviet Union at one late stage [...] I think you missed the point. As
by danieldk 11y ago
I suppose you were either there and knew what it entailed or are clear on your facts? The Soviet Union at one late stage [...]
I think you missed the point. As long as there was still socialist idealism in the hearts of a sizeable proportion of the Western population, there was always the fear of a revolt in your factory or even country. So, people with capital had to keep their workers happy.
Now that virtually everyone in the West believes in the capitalist doctrine, not making it means that you are just a sucker who did not work hard enough, did not make the right choices, etc. So, you don't protest, you just work harder.
- ende 11y agoHuh. It would be a great irony if the realization became that capitalism and socialism need each other to thrive.
- mercer 11y agoHowever tenuous the connection may be, this makes me thing of the central 'point' of the book Trying Not To Try. The author argues that societies oscillate between favoring conservative and 'liberal' values over time, and that neither extreme is ideal. In a way, perhaps capitalism can be seen as the 'liberal' side, where there is an explosion of development and innovation at the expense of stability, social cohesion and safety. Maybe our biggest long-term challenge is figuring out a way to maintain a balance and keep either 'side' from winning or at least stabilizing the oscillation a bit.
- knughit 11y agoIs it ironic? Europe's great modern wealth is socialist capitalism. The original canonical work on capitalism, Adam Smith's "On the Wealth of Nations" lays this out clearly.