4 ms·

Just for a point of clarification can you site a case where forced redistribution made the problem worse?

anbende 8y ago
The Cultural Revolution and the rise of Soviet Russia resulted in widespread famine leading to the deaths of tens of millions of people in each country. It turns out that just handing the reins of power to an untrained and inexpert proletariat is not a good strategy.
- krageon 8y ago
  The problem was forced distribution and how that is a bad idea. You've redefined it as "forced distribution by an untrained and inexpert proletariat and how it is not a good idea".
  - whalerider 8y ago
    Agreed, my original question was not trying to conflate "poor people-proletariat" with "untrained and inexpert", I think that is a dangerous path of categorization.
    - anbende 8y ago
      You asked for times when forced redistribution of wealth caused problems. I complied. In the Russian case a major problem was that the means of production (farms and farm machinery) were taken from those who knew how to use and manage them (the landowners) and given to those who didn’t. This was an extreme example (landowners were massacred). More minor forms of wealth redistribution might be more viable. The bottom percentiles are substantially less trained an less educated than the upper percentiles. This is not a “dangerous conflation”. It is a fact. Education is strongly correlated with wealth. The bottom 50% are less likely to be educated either in college OR in a skilled vocation. You wouldn’t just put the janitor in the ceo role. Likewise, you wouldn’t target innovation and technical advance by cutting taxes to the the poorest citizens. You might cut taxes for other reasons (e.g., humanitarian)... And of course, increasing educational opportunities to the poor might help w innovation, but free education is not identical w wealth redistribution.
  - anbende 8y ago
    Redistribution is always from the rich to the proletariat. “To” not “by”. I’ve pointed out that the proletariat is, on average, less expert and trained. You may disagree with this point, but I haven’t redefined anything. Instead, I’ve attempted to point out some ramifications of extreme equality. This is very different than having a strong social safety net..,
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > Redistribution is always from the rich to the proletariat. No, it's not. Redistribution in the other direction is possible, and redistribution where the parties are not “the rich” and “the proletariat” are possible.
- zhengyi13 8y ago
  In the Chinese case, it was less the Cultural Revolution, and more the Great Leap Forward, but yeah, turns out if you require everyone to produce unrealistic amounts of steel, they turn their plows and woks into steel, and then they can't produce food, and can't cook, and they starve.
  - anbende 8y ago
    True, and it was more a failed experiment in central planning than a massacre of the landowners.
  - Nasrudith 8y ago
    The Great Leap forward was an example of so many things going wrong including the danger of refusing to admit being wrong and lack of domain knowledge. The famine also has roots in the pest eradication campaign lists including sparrows because they also ate grain. However they also ate locusts which makes the "sparrow tax" well worth paying compared to plagues of locusts scouring your fields. At least until you can control them sufficiently through pesticides or other measures anyway. They refused to consult actual farmers or industrialists and then when faced with evidence of problems turned foolishness into evil by refusing to modify their policies. Just not consulting isn't a sin in itself - at times disregarding prevailing wisdom can pay off contextually or generally - if you know what you are doing or modify in the face of failures to address not knowing before rollout. Those sorts of problems were endemic to communism along with refusing to recognize that while often overcompensated and not immune to foibles they do in fact do useful work. It is interesting to contrast with actual collectives of say farmers or occasionally artists - not leading the world by any means but a stable niche and a beneficial arrangement.

The Cultural Revolution and the rise of Soviet Russia resulted in widespread famine leading to the deaths of tens of millions of people in each country. It turns out that just handing the reins of power to an untrained and inexpert proletariat is not a good strategy.

krageon 8y ago
The problem was forced distribution and how that is a bad idea. You've redefined it as "forced distribution by an untrained and inexpert proletariat and how it is not a good idea".
- whalerider 8y ago
  Agreed, my original question was not trying to conflate "poor people-proletariat" with "untrained and inexpert", I think that is a dangerous path of categorization.
  - anbende 8y ago
    You asked for times when forced redistribution of wealth caused problems. I complied. In the Russian case a major problem was that the means of production (farms and farm machinery) were taken from those who knew how to use and manage them (the landowners) and given to those who didn’t. This was an extreme example (landowners were massacred). More minor forms of wealth redistribution might be more viable. The bottom percentiles are substantially less trained an less educated than the upper percentiles. This is not a “dangerous conflation”. It is a fact. Education is strongly correlated with wealth. The bottom 50% are less likely to be educated either in college OR in a skilled vocation. You wouldn’t just put the janitor in the ceo role. Likewise, you wouldn’t target innovation and technical advance by cutting taxes to the the poorest citizens. You might cut taxes for other reasons (e.g., humanitarian)... And of course, increasing educational opportunities to the poor might help w innovation, but free education is not identical w wealth redistribution.
- anbende 8y ago
  Redistribution is always from the rich to the proletariat. “To” not “by”. I’ve pointed out that the proletariat is, on average, less expert and trained. You may disagree with this point, but I haven’t redefined anything. Instead, I’ve attempted to point out some ramifications of extreme equality. This is very different than having a strong social safety net..,
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > Redistribution is always from the rich to the proletariat. No, it's not. Redistribution in the other direction is possible, and redistribution where the parties are not “the rich” and “the proletariat” are possible.
zhengyi13 8y ago
In the Chinese case, it was less the Cultural Revolution, and more the Great Leap Forward, but yeah, turns out if you require everyone to produce unrealistic amounts of steel, they turn their plows and woks into steel, and then they can't produce food, and can't cook, and they starve.
- anbende 8y ago
  True, and it was more a failed experiment in central planning than a massacre of the landowners.
- Nasrudith 8y ago
  The Great Leap forward was an example of so many things going wrong including the danger of refusing to admit being wrong and lack of domain knowledge. The famine also has roots in the pest eradication campaign lists including sparrows because they also ate grain. However they also ate locusts which makes the "sparrow tax" well worth paying compared to plagues of locusts scouring your fields. At least until you can control them sufficiently through pesticides or other measures anyway. They refused to consult actual farmers or industrialists and then when faced with evidence of problems turned foolishness into evil by refusing to modify their policies. Just not consulting isn't a sin in itself - at times disregarding prevailing wisdom can pay off contextually or generally - if you know what you are doing or modify in the face of failures to address not knowing before rollout. Those sorts of problems were endemic to communism along with refusing to recognize that while often overcompensated and not immune to foibles they do in fact do useful work. It is interesting to contrast with actual collectives of say farmers or occasionally artists - not leading the world by any means but a stable niche and a beneficial arrangement.