4 ms·

I think the USSR would object to being called capitalist, since they were one of the major Communist revolutions until their economic collapse. And in this vei

by Natsu 3y ago

I think the USSR would object to being called capitalist, since they were one of the major Communist revolutions until their economic collapse. And in this vein, we shouldn't forget Mao's "four pests campaign" in China under Mao which caused mass starvation by killing sparrows which had been eating insects, leaving them with a literal plague of locusts. Mao would probably have murdered anyone who called him a capitalist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalist_roader https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalist_roader

mejutoco 3y ago
It is irrelevant if the object of the calling agrees or not on the name. Otherwise nobody would ever be called anything bad.
- Natsu 3y ago
  That only works if you have some way to justify it to begin with and is rather transphobic to make other people the sole arbiters of one's identity.
  - mejutoco 3y ago
    Extreme wealth concentration (the original claim) seems pretty easy to prove in the cases originally mentioned by another poster.
    - Natsu 3y ago
      I mean, sure, that's what happens literally any time you set up a super-powerful government, necessarily including any government powerful enough to redistribute all of a society's resources. See also: company towns, Pol Pot, the Kims, Mao, or what was happening in that rebellious colony called the USA before the citizens stopped it. But claiming it fits a bespoke definition of "capitalism" seemingly invented for this particular discussion, despite that being against literally everything they professed, seems a bit much. They didn't end up with extreme wealth concentration by letting people freely exchange goods and services. That usually happens when people take control of who is able to exchange goods, whether via monopolies or government control.
thephyber 3y ago
Your parent didn’t call the USSR “capitalism”, they called it “private capitalism”. I’ve never heard that term before so I’m guessing it was ad hoc. I’m guessing the public capitalism / private capitalism has to do with where the ownership of property, concentration of human capital is, and there the market making prices are found. In that sense, the public/private dichotomy mostly works. Sure, Communists argue there is more virtue to their system than simply market making and state owned property, but those are effectively downstream / derived qualities. And Mao murdered tons of people (both directly and the way a mob boss would have) for many different reasons. He probably was the kind of person who might murder someone because he woke up on the wrong side of the bed. I don’t think that matters much in this discussion and I don’t think we should self-censor our thoughts because the ghost of a terrible person might hear us.
- Natsu 3y ago
  That formulation erases any distinction between capitalism and anything else, leaving it as just an empty synonym for badness. I'm calling out the intellectual emptiness of that use as an epithet here.
- specialist 3y ago
  Ownership, correct. Who gets to the keep the surplus (profits). Tragically, I biffed. USSR is public (as in the state is the owner) and USA is private (as in you and me). I wish I could remember where I heard this taxonomy. James C Scott, Richard Wolfe, other? Sorry. A quick search suggests "USSR is state capitalism" was one of Trotsky's (many) criticisms of the USSR. Wage labor, exploitation, yadda, yadda.

by Natsu 3y ago

mejutoco 3y ago

It is irrelevant if the object of the calling agrees or not on the name. Otherwise nobody would ever be called anything bad.

Natsu 3y ago
That only works if you have some way to justify it to begin with and is rather transphobic to make other people the sole arbiters of one's identity.
- mejutoco 3y ago
  Extreme wealth concentration (the original claim) seems pretty easy to prove in the cases originally mentioned by another poster.
  - Natsu 3y ago
    I mean, sure, that's what happens literally any time you set up a super-powerful government, necessarily including any government powerful enough to redistribute all of a society's resources. See also: company towns, Pol Pot, the Kims, Mao, or what was happening in that rebellious colony called the USA before the citizens stopped it. But claiming it fits a bespoke definition of "capitalism" seemingly invented for this particular discussion, despite that being against literally everything they professed, seems a bit much. They didn't end up with extreme wealth concentration by letting people freely exchange goods and services. That usually happens when people take control of who is able to exchange goods, whether via monopolies or government control.

thephyber 3y ago

Your parent didn’t call the USSR “capitalism”, they called it “private capitalism”. I’ve never heard that term before so I’m guessing it was ad hoc. I’m guessing the public capitalism / private capitalism has to do with where the ownership of property, concentration of human capital is, and there the market making prices are found. In that sense, the public/private dichotomy mostly works. Sure, Communists argue there is more virtue to their system than simply market making and state owned property, but those are effectively downstream / derived qualities. And Mao murdered tons of people (both directly and the way a mob boss would have) for many different reasons. He probably was the kind of person who might murder someone because he woke up on the wrong side of the bed. I don’t think that matters much in this discussion and I don’t think we should self-censor our thoughts because the ghost of a terrible person might hear us.

Natsu 3y ago
That formulation erases any distinction between capitalism and anything else, leaving it as just an empty synonym for badness. I'm calling out the intellectual emptiness of that use as an epithet here.
specialist 3y ago
Ownership, correct. Who gets to the keep the surplus (profits). Tragically, I biffed. USSR is public (as in the state is the owner) and USA is private (as in you and me). I wish I could remember where I heard this taxonomy. James C Scott, Richard Wolfe, other? Sorry. A quick search suggests "USSR is state capitalism" was one of Trotsky's (many) criticisms of the USSR. Wage labor, exploitation, yadda, yadda.