4 ms·

I don't think it's actually anything to do with capitalism. It's all about having a an agenda and projecting that onto others which is always the fundamental fl

by Guthur 6y ago

I don't think it's actually anything to do with capitalism. It's all about having a an agenda and projecting that onto others which is always the fundamental flaw in professed egalitarian ideologies, at some point you'll have to take something from someone that is not willing to give up or exploit someone for the "greater good" and at that stage you'll be no different than the "tyrants" you replaced. The minute humans are in charge and setting the rules the fallible flaw has been introduced.

b4ke 6y ago
Do you believe that humans are the being at the end of the chain of control?
tsimionescu 6y ago
There was nothing egalitarian in the Soviet leadership, with some historical debate about maybe Lenin (though even with Lenin, one of his first acts after coming to power was to dissolve the Soviets, the democratic, independent factory-ruling councils that had sprung up). With Stalin definitely, the only goal was complete control over the population and over the state. Sure, egalitarianism was paid lip service, but it was entirely propaganda. In fact, the proper historical name for the economic system used in the USSR is "state capitalism". You still have corporations that employ people for a fixed wage, but instead of being controlled by private interests, they are controlled by bureaucrats appointed by the ruling dictators. Socialism would have meant that the worker-owners get payed based on the profits of the factory, and that they have a direct say in how the factory is operated. In the USSR, no one had any say in how anything was operated, save for the unelected ruling elite.
- Nginx487 6y ago
  Also, there were plenty of contradictions with capitalist principles of profit-oriented production. There were lots of examples when factories or whole industries worked not only suffering constant financial losses, but without common sense at all, like empty trucks roundtrips to meet the plan of "distance per month", assigned from above.
  - lovecg 6y ago
    Or the whaling industry charged with bringing in an absolutely meaningless required quota of whale carcasses with tragic results. It’s almost like a runaway AI chasing an arbitrary goal.
    - kubanczyk 6y ago
      It was runaway I in this case.
  - TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
    The constant financial losses aren't a symptom of poor management because some services - like health care and public transport - are public costs that shouldn't be run to generate shareholder profits. The dogma that they should be run at a profit makes as much sense as expecting your plumbing, heating, and car to generate cash for your household budget. "Empty trucks" are very much a thing in capitalism. Ask any airline about flying empty planes to keep slots. https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/airport-slots-ghost-flights/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/airport-slots-ghost-f... The real difference between "capitalism" and "communism" is that capitalist economies are consumption-driven and geared to producing status-signalling Veblen goods and services, while communist economies tend to be run on a defensive war orientation. It's easy to sell ad-driven acquisition and consumption as freedom, but real freedom is a rather difficult principle for a society to deal with. Both are totalitarian, strongly nationalist and propagandising, and unsustainable in their different ways, but - at least in the home territories - capitalism does a much better job of painting a smiley face on its bleak underside and keeping its failures out of the mainstream narratives.
- Guthur 6y ago
  That's my point though, ostensibly it was all in the name of providing equity to the work class whom were seen as disadvantaged and exploited, but actual fact they were more used as proxy for middle class intellectuals to tear down the class above them and replace it with themselves. Whether or not they were doing this out of conscious malice or it's just a natural course I'm not actually sure.
  - tsimionescu 6y ago
    My point is that it was obviously malice, with the 'noble goal' working only as propaganda. If there is any natural course to this, it is only that violent revolutions tend to naturally progress to dictatorial regimes, as they are a good moment for the most ruthless to seize power. The flavor of populism that the new dictators choose to use to ensure the population stays docile seems to matter much less.
- narrator 6y ago
  The other thing about Stalinism is that you could be imprisoned or executed for incompetence. You would be accused of being a saboteur. That would be like if capitalism made incompetence at your job a criminal offense.

by Guthur 6y ago

b4ke 6y ago

Do you believe that humans are the being at the end of the chain of control?

tsimionescu 6y ago

There was nothing egalitarian in the Soviet leadership, with some historical debate about maybe Lenin (though even with Lenin, one of his first acts after coming to power was to dissolve the Soviets, the democratic, independent factory-ruling councils that had sprung up). With Stalin definitely, the only goal was complete control over the population and over the state. Sure, egalitarianism was paid lip service, but it was entirely propaganda. In fact, the proper historical name for the economic system used in the USSR is "state capitalism". You still have corporations that employ people for a fixed wage, but instead of being controlled by private interests, they are controlled by bureaucrats appointed by the ruling dictators. Socialism would have meant that the worker-owners get payed based on the profits of the factory, and that they have a direct say in how the factory is operated. In the USSR, no one had any say in how anything was operated, save for the unelected ruling elite.

Nginx487 6y ago
Also, there were plenty of contradictions with capitalist principles of profit-oriented production. There were lots of examples when factories or whole industries worked not only suffering constant financial losses, but without common sense at all, like empty trucks roundtrips to meet the plan of "distance per month", assigned from above.
- lovecg 6y ago
  Or the whaling industry charged with bringing in an absolutely meaningless required quota of whale carcasses with tragic results. It’s almost like a runaway AI chasing an arbitrary goal.
  - kubanczyk 6y ago
    It was runaway I in this case.
- TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
  The constant financial losses aren't a symptom of poor management because some services - like health care and public transport - are public costs that shouldn't be run to generate shareholder profits. The dogma that they should be run at a profit makes as much sense as expecting your plumbing, heating, and car to generate cash for your household budget. "Empty trucks" are very much a thing in capitalism. Ask any airline about flying empty planes to keep slots. https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/airport-slots-ghost-flights/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/airport-slots-ghost-f... The real difference between "capitalism" and "communism" is that capitalist economies are consumption-driven and geared to producing status-signalling Veblen goods and services, while communist economies tend to be run on a defensive war orientation. It's easy to sell ad-driven acquisition and consumption as freedom, but real freedom is a rather difficult principle for a society to deal with. Both are totalitarian, strongly nationalist and propagandising, and unsustainable in their different ways, but - at least in the home territories - capitalism does a much better job of painting a smiley face on its bleak underside and keeping its failures out of the mainstream narratives.
Guthur 6y ago
That's my point though, ostensibly it was all in the name of providing equity to the work class whom were seen as disadvantaged and exploited, but actual fact they were more used as proxy for middle class intellectuals to tear down the class above them and replace it with themselves. Whether or not they were doing this out of conscious malice or it's just a natural course I'm not actually sure.
- tsimionescu 6y ago
  My point is that it was obviously malice, with the 'noble goal' working only as propaganda. If there is any natural course to this, it is only that violent revolutions tend to naturally progress to dictatorial regimes, as they are a good moment for the most ruthless to seize power. The flavor of populism that the new dictators choose to use to ensure the population stays docile seems to matter much less.
narrator 6y ago
The other thing about Stalinism is that you could be imprisoned or executed for incompetence. You would be accused of being a saboteur. That would be like if capitalism made incompetence at your job a criminal offense.