3 ms·

Rather a lot of them were young and naive left-wing supporters who looked at USSR through rose glasses. Wouldn't you want to be bureaucrat in late USSR? No thr

by mantas 4y ago

Rather a lot of them were young and naive left-wing supporters who looked at USSR through rose glasses. Wouldn't you want to be bureaucrat in late USSR? No threat of purges above you, only endless opportunity to play with your minions as you see fit.

ginko 4y ago
> Rather a lot of them were young and naive left-wing supporters who looked at USSR through rose glasses. The EC is dominated by conservatives.
- mantas 4y ago
  How many of those who you call conservatives where left-wing when young? Maybe they changed some views, but retained the love of total control :) I'm not sure about current EC, but the one under Juncker had plenty of far-left-when-young people. Far left as in Marxist and Maoist in 1970s-1980s. P.S. Fun story from ex-USSR country... At the very end of USSR, it was USSR apparatchiks who were called conservatives :)
immibis 4y ago
Believe it or not, the late USSR bureaucracy was anything but left-wing. It only held onto the name through inertia, greatly muddying the definitions of left- and right-wing. I believe the most accurate description is that left-wing are ideas emphasizing equality and right-wing are ideas emphasizing hierarchy/inequality. On the extreme end one way you have anarchist ideals (everyone is equal because everyone has full ability to do everything they want) but you also have some failed states (everyone is equal because everyone ekes out a miserable existence). On the other end you have, well, Hitler, dictatorships, and yes, literal bureaucracy, which is just a dictatorship hierarchy by another name.
- mantas 4y ago
  Depends how you define left wing. It was highly collectivist and little private property. It was also working hard on building the new homo sovieticus. And the idea of world domination never really went away. It was also equally poor, especially if you skip party elite. Capital was not a thing. Well, social capital did play a big role :) I can’t agree that left wing is for equality while right wing is anti-equality. Unless you’re talking about equality of outcomes, which is madness IMO. I’d rather say that left is for equality and right wing is for fairness. Equality leads to unfair outcomes for better-equipped. While fair treatment leads to unequal results. Both has pros and cons.
  - immibis 4y ago
    Left-wing is not collectivism, it's not low private property, it's not world domination, it's not poor. The NSDAP was highly collectivist - they all had to work together to build the master race, no? I imagine North Korea doesn't have very much private property. The original right wing were monarchism apologists. Hitler's right wing set up a hierarchy based on race. Mussolini's right wing set up a hierarchy based on nationality, and later race, and was also explicitly collectivist, by the way, speaking of "the debacle of individualism" and "collaboration between the classes". And capitalism makes a hierarchy based on the number next to everyone's name in the bank's spreadsheet (which is also what a social credit score is, by the way). How many more examples do you want? The right wing usually defines fairness as some kind of meritocracy based on the hierarchy du jour. For example the current right wing thinks it's fair that people with higher numbers get more stuff. Hitler thought it was fair the German empire would belong to Aryans. Mussolini wanted to expand the Italian empire. And the monarchism apologists thought it was fair that a king's children would have special rights. Sure, they support fairness, by defining it their way, in ways that most of us actually wouldn't call fair.
    - mantas 4y ago
      Hitler was national socialist for a reason :) Mussolini roots are in left wing too and was sort of socialism without internazional element. And yes, ultimately left wing is collectivist. It is fair that people who contribute more get back more. Otherwise we have USSR style mess where people ain’t incentivised to contribute. Because people were getting same compensation regardless of their contribution. Although at the end of the day it did became fair - nobody contributed much.

by mantas 4y ago

ginko 4y ago

> Rather a lot of them were young and naive left-wing supporters who looked at USSR through rose glasses. The EC is dominated by conservatives.

mantas 4y ago
How many of those who you call conservatives where left-wing when young? Maybe they changed some views, but retained the love of total control :) I'm not sure about current EC, but the one under Juncker had plenty of far-left-when-young people. Far left as in Marxist and Maoist in 1970s-1980s. P.S. Fun story from ex-USSR country... At the very end of USSR, it was USSR apparatchiks who were called conservatives :)

immibis 4y ago

Believe it or not, the late USSR bureaucracy was anything but left-wing. It only held onto the name through inertia, greatly muddying the definitions of left- and right-wing. I believe the most accurate description is that left-wing are ideas emphasizing equality and right-wing are ideas emphasizing hierarchy/inequality. On the extreme end one way you have anarchist ideals (everyone is equal because everyone has full ability to do everything they want) but you also have some failed states (everyone is equal because everyone ekes out a miserable existence). On the other end you have, well, Hitler, dictatorships, and yes, literal bureaucracy, which is just a dictatorship hierarchy by another name.

mantas 4y ago
Depends how you define left wing. It was highly collectivist and little private property. It was also working hard on building the new homo sovieticus. And the idea of world domination never really went away. It was also equally poor, especially if you skip party elite. Capital was not a thing. Well, social capital did play a big role :) I can’t agree that left wing is for equality while right wing is anti-equality. Unless you’re talking about equality of outcomes, which is madness IMO. I’d rather say that left is for equality and right wing is for fairness. Equality leads to unfair outcomes for better-equipped. While fair treatment leads to unequal results. Both has pros and cons.
- immibis 4y ago
  Left-wing is not collectivism, it's not low private property, it's not world domination, it's not poor. The NSDAP was highly collectivist - they all had to work together to build the master race, no? I imagine North Korea doesn't have very much private property. The original right wing were monarchism apologists. Hitler's right wing set up a hierarchy based on race. Mussolini's right wing set up a hierarchy based on nationality, and later race, and was also explicitly collectivist, by the way, speaking of "the debacle of individualism" and "collaboration between the classes". And capitalism makes a hierarchy based on the number next to everyone's name in the bank's spreadsheet (which is also what a social credit score is, by the way). How many more examples do you want? The right wing usually defines fairness as some kind of meritocracy based on the hierarchy du jour. For example the current right wing thinks it's fair that people with higher numbers get more stuff. Hitler thought it was fair the German empire would belong to Aryans. Mussolini wanted to expand the Italian empire. And the monarchism apologists thought it was fair that a king's children would have special rights. Sure, they support fairness, by defining it their way, in ways that most of us actually wouldn't call fair.
  - mantas 4y ago
    Hitler was national socialist for a reason :) Mussolini roots are in left wing too and was sort of socialism without internazional element. And yes, ultimately left wing is collectivist. It is fair that people who contribute more get back more. Otherwise we have USSR style mess where people ain’t incentivised to contribute. Because people were getting same compensation regardless of their contribution. Although at the end of the day it did became fair - nobody contributed much.