> grim economic insecurity ==>> really nasty governments ==>> lots of war and other evil-at-scale. I sort of agree, but it’s also a bit more nuanced than that

> grim economic insecurity ==>> really nasty governments ==>> lots of war and other evil-at-scale. I sort of agree, but it’s also a bit more nuanced than that (and of course more nuanced than what I write here. The world is incredibly complex and we simply never know in history where some event must inevitably have been followed by another or that something else could have happened under slightly different circumstances.) Hitler at the peak received only about 40% of the votes, but he got in because the autocracy thought he would not become much anyway and still hamper the autocrats opposition. Also not the whole of Europe was having nasty governments. Most were trying to appease the Nazi regime in the hope to avoid further escalation. Churchill, for example, was considered a war monger at that time since he didn’t trust Hitler and wanted to stop the appeasement politics. Also, in Eastern Europe the first causality arrow should be reversed. Really nasty governments caused economic problems in the Soviet. Not necessarily the other way around. Since there is currently a lot of capitalism hate going around, I’ll defend why the Soviet was nasty regime. The idea of Karl Marx for example was that capitalism is wage slavery and Marxism-Leninism was the only solution. So what they did in their fight against capitalism is to round up everyone who had too much capital. And to still get money into the goverment, farmers were enslaved. Next, factories received weird metrics and incentives, all centrally managed, which caused factories to often produce low quality products. In some cases the sum of the value of the products going into the factory was higher than the products coming out of the factory.