3 ms·

No. You posited that the majority of the value generated by labour is appropriated by the owners of capital. You were corrected (with numbers) to the actual cu

by nickpp 3y ago

No. You posited that the majority of the value generated by labour is appropriated by the owners of capital. You were corrected (with numbers) to the actual culprit capturing the majority of value generated by labor&capital: governments.

dontlaugh 3y ago
The discussion was about welfare, it’s childish to complain that I didn’t constantly refer to it. Ultimately the difference doesn’t matter much, governments are capital too in countries where the ruling class is capitalists. What they are forced to spend to reproduce the working class is still for their own profits. Governments aren’t some thing separate from class society.
- nickpp 3y ago
  Governments confiscate an even bigger slice of the value produced in communist countries. The difference is that there is much less value produced there…
  - dontlaugh 3y ago
    In socialist countries, workers form the ruling class. Taxes thus become a form of distributing surplus as the majority see fit. There’s less value produced in countries that started our poorer and such countries tend to have successful proletarian revolutions. It shouldn’t be surprising that they can’t instantly be as developed as the countries that exploited them.
    - nickpp 3y ago
      In the communist Eastern Europe where I grew up the nomenklatura formed the ruling class. And the only distribution of surplus was to themselves. The rest of us was starving. Common theme to all the “proletarian revolutions” I know. All that changed dramatically with the switch to capitalist, market driven economy in the 90s leading to the amazing wealth and prosperity we are currently enjoying. Meanwhile I am still waiting to hear about any communist success story…
      - dontlaugh 3y ago
        I grew up in the 90s in Eastern Europe, all I saw was constantly worsening material conditions. Nowadays we’re forced to leave our countries to avoid poverty. Almost everyone older tells us how much worse off we are than they were during socialism. But at least the remaining socialist countries are slowly winning. At this point it’s socialism or extinction.
        nickpp 3y ago
        > how much worse off we are than they were during socialism All you need to understand how false that is is to remember that the machine guns on the border during communism were pointing inwards, so people couldn’t leave. > constantly worsening material conditions Every single actual, measurable life quality metric in the EE has improved singnificantly over the last 30 years. > the remaining socialist countries are slowly winning Please feel free to point out those “winner” countries.
        dontlaugh 3y ago
        My parents were paying 5% of one salary on rent. People younger than me can barely afford rent by pooling together several salaries. The metrics improved for the capitalists that pillaged our countries during the 90s, for sure. It’s pointless talking when you’re so ideologically blinded. Probably because you profit from the exploitation of others, so it’s in your material interest.
        qwytw 3y ago
        > My parents were paying 5% of one salary on rent. People younger than me can barely afford rent by pooling together several salaries Right. What about the people who had to wait for 10-15 years to be "assigned" an apartment? > People younger than me can barely afford rent by pooling Well... If you were fine living in communal flats with shared kitchens and bathrooms you'd be fine. Just like in the good old days. > It’s pointless talking when you’re so ideologically blinded. You were marginally entertaining but I think it's time to go back to reddit. Tanks go brr, amirite comrade?
    - qwytw 3y ago
      > In socialist countries, workers form the ruling class So you're one of those people who claim that USSR wasn't a socialist let alone a communist country?
      - defrost 3y ago
        It's a pretty common position outside of the USofA, one held by political students globally and, if you care to dig back, one held by the founders of the USSR who held (textbook) communism ahead as a worthy eventual goal that made up for the intermediate period od state controlled capitalism. Ask around, no one who fled the USSR will tell you the actual people at ground level were in control. Even within the US you can find people that weren't caught up with the McCathy era mislabelling and understood the abuse of terminology: https://www.umass.edu/pubaffs/chronicle/archives/02/10-11/economics.html https://www.umass.edu/pubaffs/chronicle/archives/02/10-11/ec... Sure, many in the USofA called the USSR state "communist" but that didn't make it an example of what intended when the word came about. We can at least agree, I trust, that regardless of the naming of the state authoritarianism within the USSR that it sucked as a system to live under.
        qwytw 3y ago
        Right. So I'm just trying to figure which states do you think are/were actually socialist. > held (textbook) communism Not if bolshevism was textbook communism. They did reject some core ideas promulgated by Marx (already back in ~1918). > outside of the USofA, I don't think US is particularly special in that regard compared to most western countries.
      - dragonwriter 3y ago
        The USSR had a state capitalist system (openly acknowledged early on as a transitional phase, but even though it stopped using the term it never transitioned out of it, and neither did most other Leninist-derived systems except a few into systems which incorporated more private capitalism later on while the “Communist” Party retained authoritarian power) with the claimed near-term intent of transitioning to functional socialism and claimed long-term intent of achieving communism. The most actually socialist systems in the world are democratic states with mixed economies starting with the wave of reforms within advanced democratic capitalist economies in the early to mid-20th century that created them; that we tend to call them “capitalism” and the less socialist state capitalist regimes under Leninism and its descendants “socialism” or “communism” is largely a result of 20th century geopolitical block identities and not actual analysis of politico-economic systems against some set of clear consistent standards of what constituties “socialism”, etc.

by nickpp 3y ago

dontlaugh 3y ago

The discussion was about welfare, it’s childish to complain that I didn’t constantly refer to it. Ultimately the difference doesn’t matter much, governments are capital too in countries where the ruling class is capitalists. What they are forced to spend to reproduce the working class is still for their own profits. Governments aren’t some thing separate from class society.

nickpp 3y ago
Governments confiscate an even bigger slice of the value produced in communist countries. The difference is that there is much less value produced there…
- dontlaugh 3y ago
  In socialist countries, workers form the ruling class. Taxes thus become a form of distributing surplus as the majority see fit. There’s less value produced in countries that started our poorer and such countries tend to have successful proletarian revolutions. It shouldn’t be surprising that they can’t instantly be as developed as the countries that exploited them.
  - nickpp 3y ago
    In the communist Eastern Europe where I grew up the nomenklatura formed the ruling class. And the only distribution of surplus was to themselves. The rest of us was starving. Common theme to all the “proletarian revolutions” I know. All that changed dramatically with the switch to capitalist, market driven economy in the 90s leading to the amazing wealth and prosperity we are currently enjoying. Meanwhile I am still waiting to hear about any communist success story…
    - dontlaugh 3y ago
      I grew up in the 90s in Eastern Europe, all I saw was constantly worsening material conditions. Nowadays we’re forced to leave our countries to avoid poverty. Almost everyone older tells us how much worse off we are than they were during socialism. But at least the remaining socialist countries are slowly winning. At this point it’s socialism or extinction.
      - nickpp 3y ago
        > how much worse off we are than they were during socialism All you need to understand how false that is is to remember that the machine guns on the border during communism were pointing inwards, so people couldn’t leave. > constantly worsening material conditions Every single actual, measurable life quality metric in the EE has improved singnificantly over the last 30 years. > the remaining socialist countries are slowly winning Please feel free to point out those “winner” countries.
        dontlaugh 3y ago
        My parents were paying 5% of one salary on rent. People younger than me can barely afford rent by pooling together several salaries. The metrics improved for the capitalists that pillaged our countries during the 90s, for sure. It’s pointless talking when you’re so ideologically blinded. Probably because you profit from the exploitation of others, so it’s in your material interest.
        qwytw 3y ago
        > My parents were paying 5% of one salary on rent. People younger than me can barely afford rent by pooling together several salaries Right. What about the people who had to wait for 10-15 years to be "assigned" an apartment? > People younger than me can barely afford rent by pooling Well... If you were fine living in communal flats with shared kitchens and bathrooms you'd be fine. Just like in the good old days. > It’s pointless talking when you’re so ideologically blinded. You were marginally entertaining but I think it's time to go back to reddit. Tanks go brr, amirite comrade?
  - qwytw 3y ago
    > In socialist countries, workers form the ruling class So you're one of those people who claim that USSR wasn't a socialist let alone a communist country?
    - defrost 3y ago
      It's a pretty common position outside of the USofA, one held by political students globally and, if you care to dig back, one held by the founders of the USSR who held (textbook) communism ahead as a worthy eventual goal that made up for the intermediate period od state controlled capitalism. Ask around, no one who fled the USSR will tell you the actual people at ground level were in control. Even within the US you can find people that weren't caught up with the McCathy era mislabelling and understood the abuse of terminology: https://www.umass.edu/pubaffs/chronicle/archives/02/10-11/economics.html https://www.umass.edu/pubaffs/chronicle/archives/02/10-11/ec... Sure, many in the USofA called the USSR state "communist" but that didn't make it an example of what intended when the word came about. We can at least agree, I trust, that regardless of the naming of the state authoritarianism within the USSR that it sucked as a system to live under.
      - qwytw 3y ago
        Right. So I'm just trying to figure which states do you think are/were actually socialist. > held (textbook) communism Not if bolshevism was textbook communism. They did reject some core ideas promulgated by Marx (already back in ~1918). > outside of the USofA, I don't think US is particularly special in that regard compared to most western countries.
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      The USSR had a state capitalist system (openly acknowledged early on as a transitional phase, but even though it stopped using the term it never transitioned out of it, and neither did most other Leninist-derived systems except a few into systems which incorporated more private capitalism later on while the “Communist” Party retained authoritarian power) with the claimed near-term intent of transitioning to functional socialism and claimed long-term intent of achieving communism. The most actually socialist systems in the world are democratic states with mixed economies starting with the wave of reforms within advanced democratic capitalist economies in the early to mid-20th century that created them; that we tend to call them “capitalism” and the less socialist state capitalist regimes under Leninism and its descendants “socialism” or “communism” is largely a result of 20th century geopolitical block identities and not actual analysis of politico-economic systems against some set of clear consistent standards of what constituties “socialism”, etc.