7 ms·

And yet the technology was reserved exclusively for the Soviet political elite and never saw use with regular citizens.

cbozeman 4y ago
What I'm about to say I know will sound glib, or... something... but I don't know what else to say, or even how else to say it, but after learning this, why do I want to say something along the lines of, "Communists are too stupid to make money and this kinda proves it."
- rpmisms 4y ago
  Communism is an ideology that requires/promotes an incredibly naive worldview. In order for it to function properly, everyone must act in good faith, which is obviously impossible. Once the communism is established, the expectation is to believe everyone is acting in good faith, which is even more naive. Hence your observation.
  - colordrops 4y ago
    Capitalism is only marginally less naive. It assumes that markets behave in a way that optimizes for the public good and that regulatory mechanisms will be independent and without conflict of interest with regards to the corporations themselves. Both extremely naive.
    - t0suj4 4y ago
      Markets optimize for the needs of their participants. Most of the time it aligns with public good. The regulatory mechanism is what and from whom the participants are willing to purchase.
      - colordrops 4y ago
        > Most of the time it aligns with public good Fully disagree here. I could list a hundred egregious examples where this isn't true for major aspects of life, but it's late and I'm tired of arguing on the internet. Perhaps tomorrow I'll respond with examples.
        RealityVoid 4y ago
        The contest is if other people can list _more_ things where it _does_ align. And even if the misalignment is more frequent than alignment, are there any other systems that are better? I agreed with the general sentiment of your post and agree there are a lot of wrongly incentivized bahaviors in capitalism. It's just that finding workable alternatives is a challenge in of itself.
        Akronymus 4y ago
        Reminds me of the quote that "democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried." Just replace democracy with capitalism and government with market.
      - jraph 4y ago
        > Markets optimize for the needs of their participants They optimize for what they want, not what they need, which is a big difference. They would probably align with public good if it was the latter. Also, they optimize for what people who have money want. Participants want comfort (which we can't blame them for) and are not incentivized to solve poverty. Not saying that capitalism did not bring good stuff (won't state it neither), but part of the current result is global warming, pollution and the existence of people living in bad conditions.
        q-big 4y ago
        > but part of the current result is global warming Global warming is rather mostly a consequence of overpopulation. In the past, people often died of starvation or illnesses. "Unluckily" capitalism managed to reduce these problems by a lot. > and the existence of people living in bad conditions. In most communist countries, the living conditions were worse, so this is rather again a success story of capitalism.
      - goosedragons 4y ago
        No it doesn't. FFS bakers used to adulterate their flour with crap like chalk because it was cheaper. And there's many many examples of things like that. The market optimizes for price and only in scenarios where competition doesnt have a high bar.
      - skrtskrt 4y ago
        Speaking of naive
      - picsao 4y ago
    - refurb 4y ago
      Not sure where you learned this, but capitalism doesn’t assume either of those things. Capitalism does not assume the market optimize for the public good. It assumes when each party optimizes for their own self-interest, that optimizes resource use. And in terms of regulatory capture/corruption, I hope you're not assuming that it's somehow unique to capitalism? In fact, as the Soviet Union and China have shown, corruption is rather greater under those systems.
    - vkazanov 4y ago
      Probably the best way to explain would be to say that capitalism as an ideology optimises for the personal good, while communism optimises for the common good. As we probably know from the history of 19th/20th centuries, taken to their extreme these ideologies can be highly dangerous.
      - wwtrv 4y ago
        > while communism optimises for the common good Communism mainly optimises for the good of the high ranking party members and other apparatchiks in charge they might occasionally throw some scraps to ordinary people but I don't see how can it be considered inherently superior to capitalism in this regard based on real world example. While following 'capitalist policies' have generally resulted in a significant overall increase in the 'common good' it is unquestionably that it has also caused many terrible tragedies. However pretty much the only positive thing about communism that I can think of is that the fear of it spreading encouraged many western governments to enact progressive social, political and economical reforms (it's debatable whether this was actually a significant factor, though).
        vkazanov 4y ago
        > Communism mainly optimises for the good of the high ranking party members This happens when ideology meets the reality of dealing with people, who are mostly egoistic. Pure capitalism ideology leads into another trap: the one of oligarchic rule, with smaller groups of egoists winning the game of monopoly. A less radical version of communism, the one implemented in late USSR, where the state owns and plans everything for everyone, while proving some common good benefits (medicine, education, etc) also has a couple of fundamental problems. One is the economical problem of having to plan everything for everyone. A book called "Red Plenty" covers this really well, as well as some bits of a math behind it (linear programming, etc). In market-based economies these problems sort of go away. Until one has to deal with monopolies, that is. I don't know if somebody has an explanation for the other problem, political in nature. Communists and modern "communist-socialist" states seem to always insist on political monopoly, which makes it impossible for people to provide fast feedback to policy-makers. So it seems that an optimal balance achieved by "enlightened democratic capitalism", where the exploitive (and economically more efficient) nature of capitalism is balanced by democratic feedback.
    - rpmisms 4y ago
      Capitalism is less naive in that it does not assume good faith. That's a huge difference.
      - sangnoir 4y ago
        Instead, it naively assumes rationality
        q-big 4y ago
        It does not assume rationality. Rather, the assumption is that rational behaviour is of your advantage, which is in my opinion a very sensible assumption.
        robertlagrant 4y ago
        I would say it aligns rationality and responsibility. You want to spend your own money badly? Fine. You just don't get to spend everyone's money badly.
  - d0mine 4y ago
    Even If we ignore the actual achievements of different societies claiming they implement "ism" of one kind or another, any "ism" from XIX century regarding human behavior at scale is naive. If the theory of phlogiston went bust, it doesn't mean physics shouldn't be worked on. Even today, soft sciences are laughable.
    - molszanski 4y ago
      In my observations of the world and history, the only 'ism' that works for the people, is where the real power is concentrated in the hands of as many people as possible. As long as we create structures that concentrate power in the hands of the few, policies change and resources flow into those circles.
      - denton-scratch 4y ago
        > concentrated in the hands of as many people as possible Isn't that the opposite of "concentrated"?
        molszanski 4y ago
        You are correct! The right word would be "distributed"
  - randomdata 4y ago
    While communism is merely a thought experiment, communism imagines a world that has entered into a post-scarcity state (which is the actual unrealistic part). Once scarcity is no longer a concern, it is believed that people acting in bad faith won't be able to exert any control. The bad faith is recognized in communism. It is why it is suggested that nations must first move to socialism in order to pave the way to post-scarcity. It was believed that private interests will create artificial scarcity even after we are able to technically achieve post-scarcity if the public doesn't first gain control over the means of production.
    - supersync 4y ago
      I’m not sure your 2nd point is that controversial. Many clear examples of companies manufacturing scarcity in order to create profits - light bulbs being an easy example.
      - kortilla 4y ago
        That’s not manufactured scarcity, that’s planned obsolescence. Those are different things.
        RealityVoid 4y ago
        Yes, sure, but the two kind of go hand in hand. Media copyright, for example, is manufactured scarcity.
    - kortilla 4y ago
      That’s built on the naive assumption that people won’t seek power in a post scarcity world.
      - randomdata 4y ago
        That's like saying that capitalism has the naive assumption that people won't try to achieve post-scarcity. It is not a meaningful statement.
  - cbozeman 4y ago
    This actually explains why it's necessary for Communism as an ideology to kill so many people. You can't have bad faith actors in the system because then the system ceases to function... hence executing all the bad faith actors. Again, in theory.

What I'm about to say I know will sound glib, or... something... but I don't know what else to say, or even how else to say it, but after learning this, why do I want to say something along the lines of, "Communists are too stupid to make money and this kinda proves it."

rpmisms 4y ago
Communism is an ideology that requires/promotes an incredibly naive worldview. In order for it to function properly, everyone must act in good faith, which is obviously impossible. Once the communism is established, the expectation is to believe everyone is acting in good faith, which is even more naive. Hence your observation.
- colordrops 4y ago
  Capitalism is only marginally less naive. It assumes that markets behave in a way that optimizes for the public good and that regulatory mechanisms will be independent and without conflict of interest with regards to the corporations themselves. Both extremely naive.
  - t0suj4 4y ago
    Markets optimize for the needs of their participants. Most of the time it aligns with public good. The regulatory mechanism is what and from whom the participants are willing to purchase.
    - colordrops 4y ago
      > Most of the time it aligns with public good Fully disagree here. I could list a hundred egregious examples where this isn't true for major aspects of life, but it's late and I'm tired of arguing on the internet. Perhaps tomorrow I'll respond with examples.
      - RealityVoid 4y ago
        The contest is if other people can list _more_ things where it _does_ align. And even if the misalignment is more frequent than alignment, are there any other systems that are better? I agreed with the general sentiment of your post and agree there are a lot of wrongly incentivized bahaviors in capitalism. It's just that finding workable alternatives is a challenge in of itself.
        Akronymus 4y ago
        Reminds me of the quote that "democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried." Just replace democracy with capitalism and government with market.
    - jraph 4y ago
      > Markets optimize for the needs of their participants They optimize for what they want, not what they need, which is a big difference. They would probably align with public good if it was the latter. Also, they optimize for what people who have money want. Participants want comfort (which we can't blame them for) and are not incentivized to solve poverty. Not saying that capitalism did not bring good stuff (won't state it neither), but part of the current result is global warming, pollution and the existence of people living in bad conditions.
      - q-big 4y ago
        > but part of the current result is global warming Global warming is rather mostly a consequence of overpopulation. In the past, people often died of starvation or illnesses. "Unluckily" capitalism managed to reduce these problems by a lot. > and the existence of people living in bad conditions. In most communist countries, the living conditions were worse, so this is rather again a success story of capitalism.
    - goosedragons 4y ago
      No it doesn't. FFS bakers used to adulterate their flour with crap like chalk because it was cheaper. And there's many many examples of things like that. The market optimizes for price and only in scenarios where competition doesnt have a high bar.
    - skrtskrt 4y ago
      Speaking of naive
    - picsao 4y ago
  - refurb 4y ago
    Not sure where you learned this, but capitalism doesn’t assume either of those things. Capitalism does not assume the market optimize for the public good. It assumes when each party optimizes for their own self-interest, that optimizes resource use. And in terms of regulatory capture/corruption, I hope you're not assuming that it's somehow unique to capitalism? In fact, as the Soviet Union and China have shown, corruption is rather greater under those systems.
  - vkazanov 4y ago
    Probably the best way to explain would be to say that capitalism as an ideology optimises for the personal good, while communism optimises for the common good. As we probably know from the history of 19th/20th centuries, taken to their extreme these ideologies can be highly dangerous.
    - wwtrv 4y ago
      > while communism optimises for the common good Communism mainly optimises for the good of the high ranking party members and other apparatchiks in charge they might occasionally throw some scraps to ordinary people but I don't see how can it be considered inherently superior to capitalism in this regard based on real world example. While following 'capitalist policies' have generally resulted in a significant overall increase in the 'common good' it is unquestionably that it has also caused many terrible tragedies. However pretty much the only positive thing about communism that I can think of is that the fear of it spreading encouraged many western governments to enact progressive social, political and economical reforms (it's debatable whether this was actually a significant factor, though).
      - vkazanov 4y ago
        > Communism mainly optimises for the good of the high ranking party members This happens when ideology meets the reality of dealing with people, who are mostly egoistic. Pure capitalism ideology leads into another trap: the one of oligarchic rule, with smaller groups of egoists winning the game of monopoly. A less radical version of communism, the one implemented in late USSR, where the state owns and plans everything for everyone, while proving some common good benefits (medicine, education, etc) also has a couple of fundamental problems. One is the economical problem of having to plan everything for everyone. A book called "Red Plenty" covers this really well, as well as some bits of a math behind it (linear programming, etc). In market-based economies these problems sort of go away. Until one has to deal with monopolies, that is. I don't know if somebody has an explanation for the other problem, political in nature. Communists and modern "communist-socialist" states seem to always insist on political monopoly, which makes it impossible for people to provide fast feedback to policy-makers. So it seems that an optimal balance achieved by "enlightened democratic capitalism", where the exploitive (and economically more efficient) nature of capitalism is balanced by democratic feedback.
  - rpmisms 4y ago
    Capitalism is less naive in that it does not assume good faith. That's a huge difference.
    - sangnoir 4y ago
      Instead, it naively assumes rationality
      - q-big 4y ago
        It does not assume rationality. Rather, the assumption is that rational behaviour is of your advantage, which is in my opinion a very sensible assumption.
      - robertlagrant 4y ago
        I would say it aligns rationality and responsibility. You want to spend your own money badly? Fine. You just don't get to spend everyone's money badly.
- d0mine 4y ago
  Even If we ignore the actual achievements of different societies claiming they implement "ism" of one kind or another, any "ism" from XIX century regarding human behavior at scale is naive. If the theory of phlogiston went bust, it doesn't mean physics shouldn't be worked on. Even today, soft sciences are laughable.
  - molszanski 4y ago
    In my observations of the world and history, the only 'ism' that works for the people, is where the real power is concentrated in the hands of as many people as possible. As long as we create structures that concentrate power in the hands of the few, policies change and resources flow into those circles.
    - denton-scratch 4y ago
      > concentrated in the hands of as many people as possible Isn't that the opposite of "concentrated"?
      - molszanski 4y ago
        You are correct! The right word would be "distributed"
- randomdata 4y ago
  While communism is merely a thought experiment, communism imagines a world that has entered into a post-scarcity state (which is the actual unrealistic part). Once scarcity is no longer a concern, it is believed that people acting in bad faith won't be able to exert any control. The bad faith is recognized in communism. It is why it is suggested that nations must first move to socialism in order to pave the way to post-scarcity. It was believed that private interests will create artificial scarcity even after we are able to technically achieve post-scarcity if the public doesn't first gain control over the means of production.
  - supersync 4y ago
    I’m not sure your 2nd point is that controversial. Many clear examples of companies manufacturing scarcity in order to create profits - light bulbs being an easy example.
    - kortilla 4y ago
      That’s not manufactured scarcity, that’s planned obsolescence. Those are different things.
      - RealityVoid 4y ago
        Yes, sure, but the two kind of go hand in hand. Media copyright, for example, is manufactured scarcity.
  - kortilla 4y ago
    That’s built on the naive assumption that people won’t seek power in a post scarcity world.
    - randomdata 4y ago
      That's like saying that capitalism has the naive assumption that people won't try to achieve post-scarcity. It is not a meaningful statement.
- cbozeman 4y ago
  This actually explains why it's necessary for Communism as an ideology to kill so many people. You can't have bad faith actors in the system because then the system ceases to function... hence executing all the bad faith actors. Again, in theory.