Those public funds come from taking a portion of the money that PRIVATE enterprise creates. You can't provide public funds to anything when you have no one to tax.
Money is a product of the government treasury, it's value only comes from the fact that the government requires you pay taxes with it after they issue it.
Money is a product of the government treasury, it's value only comes from the fact that the government requires you pay taxes with it after they issue it.
If the U.S. government disappeared tomorrow, U.S. banknotes would become near worthless overnight. "Money" can't be expropriated from the citizenry because the citizenry don't really even own that money to begin with. What you're trying to get at is the whole monopoly on violence thing, but you're doing so in a blatantly wrong way.
You're splitting hairs. Governments sustain themselves by expropriating whatever medium of exchange it's citizens use.
Whether or not the government dictates the use of that medium of exchange is orthogonal to the point.
If the dollar collapses tomorrow and people start using bullets and cigs as the default medium of exchange, you can bet your ass whatever .gov is left will tax that.
The concept of money, yes. The user I was quoting was being lazy, but it is assumed they are referring to the dollar as a modern fiat currency. U.S. banknotes themselves have much more attached than just a fungible method of transactions. There's monetary policy, financial institutions, counterfeit enforcement, fiscal policy (lol), taxation system, IP enforcement, etc. Tax enforcement and regulation are also part and parcel with this.
The whole "expropriate money from the citizens" sentiment has to do with the fact that U.S. citizens are typically born on U.S. soil, and thus have no choice in the matter of whether or not they participate in the U.S. financial system. This is also the basis upon which ancaps consider states to be fascist and illegitimate.
I figure you're kinda playing Devil's Advocate but there's a reverse:
It's actually somewhat possible to minimize interaction with the government and financial system but it's a pain in the ass and a lot of work. There's a reason few do it. So to enjoy benefits and protections of society you have to pay club dues in the form of taxes. They want property, protection, and benefits with none of the responsibilities or dues. What they are looking for is basically societal shoplifting. If they simply give up the the bulk of their property they actually could still get protection and benefits, they being babies though.
Yups and it took extensive knowledge to determine which bank's notes and sheer luck to figure which would go tits up. It was a repeated failure and the greenback movement sprang up as a popular way to help the common man in the US. Especially in rural communities which is ironic in current conspiritard land
Why? You have some rich emigrate ancestry? For a lot of people, the USSR was a decent life. Definitely shittier than the US, but it wasn't as gloom and doom as people like to jerk off about here
I'm not sure if any country in the Warsaw Pact "became a shithole". They just did not grow with the rapidity as Marshall Plan recipients after the war, and the top 20% of the population lost their social mobility.
It is all relative. It would be pretty pathetic if a country didn't improve fifty years later. Just compare the two sides of Germany for example. USSR is cancer to whatever it touches even decades after it is gone.
It was doing okay-ish in the thirties, got a big boost at the end of ww2 (from stealing german stuff) that made them relevant for twenty years, but then they missed the computer coach and were irrelevant.
The fact that they didn't have publish or perish didn't help them either.
Yes I completely would agree with that. But it is hard to fault them for outright theft of all things Germany including walking away with entire factories without mentioning the West welcomed German scientistists into the fold.
They did very well with things that require zero market influence like the space race.
It was still a shithole and collapsed on itself though because unfortunately you can't just throw bodies at making a country a great place to live. You can definitely win wars that way though.
Yes I would completely agree with that. But it is hard to fault them for outright theft of all things Germany including walking away with entire factories without mentioning the West welcomed German scientistists into the fold.
Eh, the west welcomed german scientists, the URSS pumped them for all they were worth (they were put in prison and had to write everything they knew)
Well nothing new there. USSR was not exactly known for quality of life and human rights. I am only giving them credit where it is due for results even though there was zero percent chance of it ever being sustainable in any way.
Now I hate you for making me defend Soviet military doctrine. You're acting like they learned nothing from the embarrassing parts of the Winter War and just won because they had the most guys. They won because Zhukov, among others, was a very capable commander, and because their tanks (like the Sherman!) were practical for mass production and could be easily serviced in the field.
They lacked the resources to fight the war and were propped up by West for materials and food. They also suffered massive casualties. I don't know how you could say they learned their lessons considering Stalin purged his military brass which naturally decreased their institutional knowledge.
Stalin was a comically bad leader that managed to win because he had a large population with rich allies and huge territory that is a huge pain in the ass to invade and hold especially when it was all scorched during the many retreats.
I don't know how you could say they learned their lessons considering Stalin purged his military brass which naturally decreased their institutional knowledge.
You're getting your chronology mixed up. The worst of the purges happened before the Winter War, and directly caused the embarrassment of getting fought to a draw by Finland. When Stalin stayed out of the minutiae of front-line decisionmaking, Zhukov did fine.
Also, Soviet armor was generally superior to German armor, in terms of being reliable and easy to mass-produce. In his recorded conversation with Mannerheim, Hitler expresses shock at how many tanks the Soviets actually had.
Ok sorry you are right regarding purge. I would agree that the tanks were better too. You are leaving out though that the logistics were dependent on getting lots of supplies sent to them by their allies to prop them up while the USSR supplied manpower. Germany also did get bogged down from stretched supply lines from invading such a vast country.
They were kind of sad places though, because they were really fucked by being completely unable to partake in the whole computational revolution. They had to make do with essentially cast off technology from the west, which really hampered them in some areas in which they were traditionally strong, like mathematical modeling.
So yes, while the soviet union made certain advances, they certainly weren't on the same tier as the US from the 70s onwards.
Well no shit, women from less developed countries are always better because they are less crazy and less filled with nonsense. They can actually get through a day without SSRIs and can't even pronounce "fribomylogia" much less pretend to have it.
Serious Post:If there's one thing I think the soviets did well, it was that they certainly trained and created a base of technologically literate and intelligent scientists, but the trouble was, without any sort of market economy, many of the talents of their people were wasted and mismanaged.
All of their technically prowess was best seen in their military and space hardware, but as other commentators have pointed out, by the 1970's and 80's they were behind in a number of sectors. Specifically computers and electronics (which were being miniaturized at the time, the microprocessor was invented in 1971) whereas the soviet MiG-25 was still using vacuum tubes.
Not compared to the amount of resources invested in it and the amount of smart people pulled away to work on it. Giant waste of money and brains. ITER being a shining example of this.
The private sector isnt going to fund research into fusion. The amount of technology that private corporation have borrowed, refined, and built upon from government funded research is ridiculous
Let us know when you plan on giving up all military and government-derived technologies, because until then you'll only get what comes out of huge monopolies that can afford to fund the research like Bell (until 1984) and Monsanto
Soviet Universities produces many top engineers and scientists who were then put to work building the Soviet war machine instead of bettering the lives of the Soviet People.
I think it's safe to say in capitalist economies, both the private sector and public sector are pretty important to innovation and technological process. The government does a good job with basic research, and the private sector is good at applying that research. For example, the internet first started out as a government military project, but it's been the private sector that has brought the internet to the masses
being blackpilled sucks. I can't even enjoy commie drama anymore, every thread I click on I realize the foids are out there fucking us men over and I get depressed.
The production of goods and services being dependent on human labor is not a fundamental fact of life. It is merely an artifact of capitalism, and is part of a vast conspiracy to force people into meaningless work. That is why we need socialism.
Holy fuck are communists absolutely retarded. How in the fucj have they gotten so bad and half the procapitalists are being downvoted. All the communists subs on reddit need to be banned.
Communism is like flat earthering. It shouldn't be a debate. We have countless experiments to draw on, and very simple economic and social theory that explains the results of those experiments.
In short, incentives. Central planning is extremely difficult, largely impossible, the world is impossibly complex and trying to plan things centrally is the worst way to approach this complexity. Per incentives, humans act in their self interest. Any system that ignores or wishes this away is working horribly and unfixably uphill.
Two very, very simple things which commies refuse to contend with.
They should just be honest and say "we are looking for loot, we are co.ing up with justifications for dragging down successful capitalists we don't like and taking their money and status."
That would be a lot more honorable than this whole song and dance social economic theory they pretend to believe in.
I like that they always say "but if it works", okay buddy stop right there. Communism literally can not work, why the fuck would someone study for 10 years to become a doctor if he's going to make the same amount of money as someone who didn't study at all, why work hard when you don't need to. If everyone has the same amount of money everyone is poor.
Without delving into the situation of the ussr, just look at how fucked up the DDR was compared to the BRD, that area is still suffering from that amazing ideology.
Current mechanisms that keep capitalism afloat are fairly abstract and there's nothing really pointing to that ownership/work/consumption have to be as separate as we have today. The idea of "shareholders are the only important stakeholders" system found in the US today is pretty much an accident of tax and corporate law. That and the incestuous nature of BoGs and their direct employees (CEOs et al) has crippled reinvestment in critical industries.
There's easy ways to widen ownership, make BoGs more responsive to different stakeholders, and increase economic growth but the current C Suite class have pretty much enriched themselves despite being employees and by and large fairly replaceable and created the mythos the US has about the job type.
If you count German union(or worker)/shareowner co-ownerships that number jumps up pretty dramatically: second biggest auto manufacturer, fourth biggest bank, and one of the biggest tech firms. Plus... A whole lot of the biggest firms are straight up SEOs (Aramco/Gazprom for instance).
Co ops I think are good ideas but only if orders of operation plan for scaling, which many do not especially in the US.
And it's not like outsider investors should get iced out of decisions, in fact I'm very for investor governance reforms that would help keep boards accountable to them instead of the C suite they employ.
I'm a bit of a radical, but would love to see easy enough reforms that would have big impact.
shareholders are the only important stakeholders" system found in the US today
this is literally not true in the us today, most large corporations operate off the triple bottom line, only small businesses don't and that's because they can't afford to.
While laudable knowing a while lot of board members it kinda seems like window dressing tbh and to say most is a bit of a stretch. Few major corporations are established as B Corps even though that's an easy way to do it.
Hmmm. My understanding was that in order to join the Soviet military you had to be a member of the Communist Party, and as I really don’t believe that the sons of powerful KGB agents would particularly want a junior enlisted position I wouldn’t be surprised if just being a member didn’t mean shit.
No matter what system of government you have, there will always be about 200-300 people who hold real power. Anyone outside of that falls in line based upon well-established lines or else has such little influence that they are extraneous.
Replace "200-300" with a proportion and then realize that even those at the "top" are still utterly helpless to the ebbs and flows of society. Nobody is really "in control".
Of course the ebbs and flows of popular opinion makes up the sovereign "general will" which determines the direction of society. I'm more talking about governmental, institutional power.
Lol, I'm not talking about "general opinion". I'm talking about things like demographic trajectories, cultural shifts, economic velocity, etc. Society is a giant churning mass, and our institutions are just reflections of their underlying participants. I'm a fan of Conway's law and I like to think about human institutions with it in context: we are constrained to produce institutions that are a reflection of our own underlying social currents. It's hand-wavey, I know, but I only use it to try and get across the basic idea.
In order to advance far up the chain of command? Yeah. But ever soviet man served at least a few years in the army, and plenty of officers never ended up being party members
If they bring about the Revolution they should be entitled to it no? All those neoliberal kiddies can toil in the fields while the red hats are put to work in the salt mines of Kessel.
This is why they start to salivate at the mouth and take on Biblical tones when they talk about climate change. On some level, the idea of society being catastrophically torn down excites them.
Of course, they're completely delusional. This isn't what happens during major catastrophes. There are three well-documented plagues--the Antonine Plague, the Plague of Justinian, and of course the Black Death--that killed from 30% to 60% of Europe's population, and after each one, the social order emerged pretty much unchanged. And these happened in pre-modern societies, where the state didn't have access to wiretaps, drone surveillance, or metadata, and where the masses were accustomed to physical labor and hardship.
Climate change will affect our politics, of course, but it's going to speed us to more centralization and authoritarianism, not less.
What the fuck are you on about. The social order was changed massively by the plauges. The life of the average peasant was masiively improved because there was less competition for land. They also quickly became valuable workers rather than replacable pawns and their living standards rose accordingly. Sure it didn't end fudalism, but it certainly took a massive step in that direction.
Sure, the start of the Italian Renaissance can be roughly lined up with the first generation that was born after the Black Death. But even then, capitalism was just a weird system practiced by a few Italian city-states, and it was practiced under the patronage of the feudal elite. It was the opening of the Atlantic to trade that ended feudalism, and even then, the system carried on for like 300 more years.
Sure. Here in norway feudalism never really existed in full force because of the black death, as well as the natrually sparse population due to the shitty farming prospects.
Ive heard it from a few different sources, but the only things in our existence that has been successful in solving income in-equality is famine and war. Because both kill indiscriminately and open up the playing field for the lower classes.
Lets be real they are. Not the right wing of the rich but the liberal rich. They'll see it as a sacrafice needed to save the world after all humans are cancer etc etc etc
If I was rich in the fully automated era I'd get my ass in a spaceship with mu loved ones and get the fuck out of dodge leaving behind whatever means of production would keep the plebs happy. No one is going to get killed over landrights to your shitshack in a dumpster state.
It's like murder is their fundamental tendency. The answer to any problem is murder. In debt because you picked a useless major and can't find a job? Murder. The poor son of a bitch who eventually hired you makes more money than you? Murder. Someone holds an opinion about communism/murder which differs from yours? Oh you better believe that's a murder.
Except that it actually isn’t a scapegoat? Tell me if a fully automated society was available what would stop the Uber rich from having every other human on earth killed?
The world not being a fucking dystopian preteen novel? 350 million guns in the hands of private citizens in just the US? idk
Also most rich people are extroverts (or at least not supervillains) so wantonly killing people isn't itself productive. The goal of getting rich is not to have an empty planet to yourself.
Marx advocated for dictatorship of the proletariat followed by the dissolving of world governments and differences, so a dictatorship like Venezuela is partway at least there.
156 comments
1 SnapshillBot 2018-10-28
Promoting anarchofascism for 9 years and counting.
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
1 Sniffposter30 2018-10-28
W O K E
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2018-10-28
😴😴😴
1 cruelandusual 2018-10-28
You know, because Soviet universities were such hotbeds of innovation.
1 Skyright 2018-10-28
Those public funds come from taking a portion of the money that PRIVATE enterprise creates. You can't provide public funds to anything when you have no one to tax.
1 wiking85 2018-10-28
Money is a product of the government treasury, it's value only comes from the fact that the government requires you pay taxes with it after they issue it.
1 Barton_Foley 2018-10-28
The government has no money of its own. It only has the money it has expropriated from the citizenry.
1 UpvoteIfYouDare 2018-10-28
As the other user succinctly put it:
If the U.S. government disappeared tomorrow, U.S. banknotes would become near worthless overnight. "Money" can't be expropriated from the citizenry because the citizenry don't really even own that money to begin with. What you're trying to get at is the whole monopoly on violence thing, but you're doing so in a blatantly wrong way.
1 Anarcho_Autism 2018-10-28
You're splitting hairs. Governments sustain themselves by expropriating whatever medium of exchange it's citizens use.
Whether or not the government dictates the use of that medium of exchange is orthogonal to the point.
If the dollar collapses tomorrow and people start using bullets and cigs as the default medium of exchange, you can bet your ass whatever .gov is left will tax that.
1 Whaddaulookinat 2018-10-28
No money is the fungible method of transactions. The reason why a country uses issued currency is because it's simply easier.
1 UpvoteIfYouDare 2018-10-28
The concept of money, yes. The user I was quoting was being lazy, but it is assumed they are referring to the dollar as a modern fiat currency. U.S. banknotes themselves have much more attached than just a fungible method of transactions. There's monetary policy, financial institutions, counterfeit enforcement, fiscal policy (lol), taxation system, IP enforcement, etc. Tax enforcement and regulation are also part and parcel with this.
The whole "expropriate money from the citizens" sentiment has to do with the fact that U.S. citizens are typically born on U.S. soil, and thus have no choice in the matter of whether or not they participate in the U.S. financial system. This is also the basis upon which ancaps consider states to be fascist and illegitimate.
1 Whaddaulookinat 2018-10-28
I figure you're kinda playing Devil's Advocate but there's a reverse:
It's actually somewhat possible to minimize interaction with the government and financial system but it's a pain in the ass and a lot of work. There's a reason few do it. So to enjoy benefits and protections of society you have to pay club dues in the form of taxes. They want property, protection, and benefits with none of the responsibilities or dues. What they are looking for is basically societal shoplifting. If they simply give up the the bulk of their property they actually could still get protection and benefits, they being babies though.
1 UpvoteIfYouDare 2018-10-28
Yeah, I was trying to imply that with this part.
1 Whaddaulookinat 2018-10-28
Oh fair play sorry lol
1 UpvoteIfYouDare 2018-10-28
I probably should have put more of an emphasis on them.
1 Whaddaulookinat 2018-10-28
Naw I'm a bit pissed any miscommunication is Def on me
1 spongish 2018-10-28
Banks used to issue their own currency many years ago I believe.
1 Whaddaulookinat 2018-10-28
Yups and it took extensive knowledge to determine which bank's notes and sheer luck to figure which would go tits up. It was a repeated failure and the greenback movement sprang up as a popular way to help the common man in the US. Especially in rural communities which is ironic in current conspiritard land
1 HP_civ 2018-10-28
Yeah right, it all belongs to the Iloominatis anyway, I mean they trademarked that shit with their pyramids !?
1 HP_civ 2018-10-28
Yeah it's so simple really, like water that comes out of the sink, and electricity from the socket, money comes only from taxes
1 okedtsuj 2018-10-28
I know you want to be right badly, but this is one of those things where you simply aren't
1 RecallRethuglicans 2018-10-28
Agreed. The Soviets were miles ahead of the Americans
1 bcat124 2018-10-28
is this seriousposting bait? Because Soviet universities were very much hotbeds of scientific innovations
1 advice-alligator 2018-10-28
...they were, though. Soviet and Western scientists even collaborated on occasion, like with the polio vaccine.
1 TheColdTurtle 2018-10-28
Glad that some things like vaccines are above politics and country rivalries. Well, they were.
1 advice-alligator 2018-10-28
Not quite "above" politics as much as the Soviets' view of scientific research massively improved after Uncle Joe died.
1 blancccc 2018-10-28
Soviet union collapsed because of the autism they got from their vaccines, glad it's been confirmed
1 CirqueDuFuder 2018-10-28
You are going to make me defend USSR and honestly that makes be want to ban you.
1 cruelandusual 2018-10-28
TIL there are Soviet wehraboos.
1 CirqueDuFuder 2018-10-28
The point of my comment was that I hate the USSR with every fiber of my being.
1 plurpnslurp 2018-10-28
Why? You have some rich emigrate ancestry? For a lot of people, the USSR was a decent life. Definitely shittier than the US, but it wasn't as gloom and doom as people like to jerk off about here
1 CirqueDuFuder 2018-10-28
Because they took over half of fucking Europe against their will and turned it into a shithole for the sake of their empire.
1 Vladith 2018-10-28
I'm not sure if any country in the Warsaw Pact "became a shithole". They just did not grow with the rapidity as Marshall Plan recipients after the war, and the top 20% of the population lost their social mobility.
1 CirqueDuFuder 2018-10-28
You think a non shit hole country requires secret police and the threat of murder for trying to leave?
1 Vladith 2018-10-28
They key word in my post was "became".
I'd rather spend a year as a worker in 1960s Romania than a month as a starving peasant in 1910s Romania.
1 CirqueDuFuder 2018-10-28
It is all relative. It would be pretty pathetic if a country didn't improve fifty years later. Just compare the two sides of Germany for example. USSR is cancer to whatever it touches even decades after it is gone.
1 Bigbewmistaken 2018-10-28
As opposed to being a serf for some rich dude yeah, but people still on average were living horrible lives because of a shitty political experiment.
1 LaptopEnforcer 2018-10-28
God can i marry you? I swear this bussy is tight and hates the CCCP with a raging passionate hate-boner.
1 CirqueDuFuder 2018-10-28
Lmao
1 cmakk1012 2018-10-28
you didn’t know about tankies before?
1 cruelandusual 2018-10-28
Not necessarily tankies, but people who but mythologize the Soviet technological and military prowess, like the wehraboos do for the Nazis.
1 error404brain 2018-10-28
To be fair from the 60/70 on, due to them missing the computer revolution they were very far behind.
1 CirqueDuFuder 2018-10-28
Sure but it was a pretty open ended statement and USSR existed quite a bit longer than that period.
1 error404brain 2018-10-28
It was doing okay-ish in the thirties, got a big boost at the end of ww2 (from stealing german stuff) that made them relevant for twenty years, but then they missed the computer coach and were irrelevant.
The fact that they didn't have publish or perish didn't help them either.
1 CirqueDuFuder 2018-10-28
Yes I completely would agree with that. But it is hard to fault them for outright theft of all things Germany including walking away with entire factories without mentioning the West welcomed German scientistists into the fold.
They did very well with things that require zero market influence like the space race.
It was still a shithole and collapsed on itself though because unfortunately you can't just throw bodies at making a country a great place to live. You can definitely win wars that way though.
1 error404brain 2018-10-28
Eh, the west welcomed german scientists, the URSS pumped them for all they were worth (they were put in prison and had to write everything they knew)
1 CirqueDuFuder 2018-10-28
Well nothing new there. USSR was not exactly known for quality of life and human rights. I am only giving them credit where it is due for results even though there was zero percent chance of it ever being sustainable in any way.
1 dootwthesickness_II 2018-10-28
Now I hate you for making me defend Soviet military doctrine. You're acting like they learned nothing from the embarrassing parts of the Winter War and just won because they had the most guys. They won because Zhukov, among others, was a very capable commander, and because their tanks (like the Sherman!) were practical for mass production and could be easily serviced in the field.
1 CirqueDuFuder 2018-10-28
They lacked the resources to fight the war and were propped up by West for materials and food. They also suffered massive casualties. I don't know how you could say they learned their lessons considering Stalin purged his military brass which naturally decreased their institutional knowledge.
Stalin was a comically bad leader that managed to win because he had a large population with rich allies and huge territory that is a huge pain in the ass to invade and hold especially when it was all scorched during the many retreats.
1 dootwthesickness_II 2018-10-28
You're getting your chronology mixed up. The worst of the purges happened before the Winter War, and directly caused the embarrassment of getting fought to a draw by Finland. When Stalin stayed out of the minutiae of front-line decisionmaking, Zhukov did fine.
Also, Soviet armor was generally superior to German armor, in terms of being reliable and easy to mass-produce. In his recorded conversation with Mannerheim, Hitler expresses shock at how many tanks the Soviets actually had.
1 CirqueDuFuder 2018-10-28
Ok sorry you are right regarding purge. I would agree that the tanks were better too. You are leaving out though that the logistics were dependent on getting lots of supplies sent to them by their allies to prop them up while the USSR supplied manpower. Germany also did get bogged down from stretched supply lines from invading such a vast country.
1 bernredditdown 2018-10-28
I'm sure there was no downside to WW2 in Russia.
1 error404brain 2018-10-28
Not really. Uneducated people died but they were remplaced by the conquered countries, so russia wasn't hurt.
1 Pinksister 2018-10-28
The USSR was garbage and their women were a bunch of warty barrel-bellied bridge trolls, fight me.
1 CirqueDuFuder 2018-10-28
What makes you think I like the USSR lmao?
1 Hammer_of_truthiness 2018-10-28
these bois lack the nuance receptors of the true radical centrist circo there's no helping them
1 CirqueDuFuder 2018-10-28
I feel like I need a fucking billboard size road map to diagram such a simple sentence.
1 Mat_The_49th 2018-10-28
Look, I find tankies insufferable as much as the next average person, but this is some boomer-level historical illiteracy right here.
1 SuperObviousShill 2018-10-28
They were kind of sad places though, because they were really fucked by being completely unable to partake in the whole computational revolution. They had to make do with essentially cast off technology from the west, which really hampered them in some areas in which they were traditionally strong, like mathematical modeling.
So yes, while the soviet union made certain advances, they certainly weren't on the same tier as the US from the 70s onwards.
1 bernredditdown 2018-10-28
Ruski gussy > 'murcan gussy. No fucking question.
1 SuperObviousShill 2018-10-28
Well no shit, women from less developed countries are always better because they are less crazy and less filled with nonsense. They can actually get through a day without SSRIs and can't even pronounce "fribomylogia" much less pretend to have it.
1 Van-Diemen 2018-10-28
Maybe up until the 70s, but missing out on the computing revolution really set them back.
1 throwawayact69 2018-10-28
Serious Post:If there's one thing I think the soviets did well, it was that they certainly trained and created a base of technologically literate and intelligent scientists, but the trouble was, without any sort of market economy, many of the talents of their people were wasted and mismanaged.
All of their technically prowess was best seen in their military and space hardware, but as other commentators have pointed out, by the 1970's and 80's they were behind in a number of sectors. Specifically computers and electronics (which were being miniaturized at the time, the microprocessor was invented in 1971) whereas the soviet MiG-25 was still using vacuum tubes.
1 HolyWarsPunishment 2018-10-28
Most technology has come out of private innovation. Universities are where government funding goes to disappear.
1 cruelandusual 2018-10-28
And the other side shows up. Radical centrism is maintained.
1 boyoyoyoyong 2018-10-28
The amount of technology that's come from NASA and darpa is staggering.
1 HolyWarsPunishment 2018-10-28
Not compared to the amount of resources invested in it and the amount of smart people pulled away to work on it. Giant waste of money and brains. ITER being a shining example of this.
1 boyoyoyoyong 2018-10-28
The private sector isnt going to fund research into fusion. The amount of technology that private corporation have borrowed, refined, and built upon from government funded research is ridiculous
1 seenten 2018-10-28
Let us know when you plan on giving up all military and government-derived technologies, because until then you'll only get what comes out of huge monopolies that can afford to fund the research like Bell (until 1984) and Monsanto
1 westofthetracks 2018-10-28
your retarded
1 Tasty_Treat_4_U 2018-10-28
Soviet Universities produces many top engineers and scientists who were then put to work building the Soviet war machine instead of bettering the lives of the Soviet People.
1 barbadosslim 2018-10-28
so like western engineers lol
1 barbadosslim 2018-10-28
are you being sarcastic?
1 throwawayact69 2018-10-28
I think it's safe to say in capitalist economies, both the private sector and public sector are pretty important to innovation and technological process. The government does a good job with basic research, and the private sector is good at applying that research. For example, the internet first started out as a government military project, but it's been the private sector that has brought the internet to the masses
1 Zozbot 2018-10-28
zoz
1 Zozbot 2018-10-28
zle
1 Zozbot 2018-10-28
zozzle
1 TrippelSewe 2018-10-28
Holy shite mate, I'm no Soviet fanboy, but it takes a large amount of ignorance to look past the technological achievements of the USSR.
1 IDFSHILL 2018-10-28
being blackpilled sucks. I can't even enjoy commie drama anymore, every thread I click on I realize the foids are out there fucking us men over and I get depressed.
1 wwaalleess 2018-10-28
I'm still not sure if you are actually pizzashill or a pizzashill parody account.
1 SJCards 2018-10-28
He's fully committed to sperging. If you can't tell the difference, does it matter?
1 Tasty_Treat_4_U 2018-10-28
Well at least you still have your hand to jack off and tears to use for lubricant.
1 TatsuyaOW 2018-10-28
Having to work sucks 🤬 I just want to neet it out for the rest of my life
1 UmmahSultan 2018-10-28
The production of goods and services being dependent on human labor is not a fundamental fact of life. It is merely an artifact of capitalism, and is part of a vast conspiracy to force people into meaningless work. That is why we need socialism.
1 TatsuyaOW 2018-10-28
When robots come human labor won’t be nesc
1 cmakk1012 2018-10-28
Going by your username, would this be Assad socialism?
1 Death_Trolley 2018-10-28
Can’t tell if you’re joking or not
1 UpvoteIfYouDare 2018-10-28
It is for the time being. Automation is still so far from where ChapoTards think it is, and this is coming from someone who works in the industry.
1 GandalfTheGay_69 2018-10-28
We should all just lay on the ground outside and do some photosynthesis
1 PUBLIQclopAccountant 2018-10-28
This but unironically
1 barbadosslim 2018-10-28
hell yeah
1 Spookybooks2 2018-10-28
I mean, in commie countries you work or you die by way of the bullet. Do these retards think socialism/Communism equals not having to work anymore?
1 cheeZetoastee 2018-10-28
yes, the rich will provide them with NEETbux
1 bamename 2018-10-28
I am pretty sure you don't understand the difference in definitions between you and them.
1 Spookybooks2 2018-10-28
Sht the fuck up nigger.
1 bamename 2018-10-28
okay spic
1 Mikeavelli 2018-10-28
Such wonderful multiculturalism
1 advice-alligator 2018-10-28
Most internet socialists are just liberals that want more welfare. Chapo kids are the left wing version of the fat manchildren in Pepe shirts.
1 allanmes 2018-10-28
these retards? No. The retards ITT that are going "Soshalism = no one work hahaha soshalism dumb"? Yes, that is unfortunately what you people think.
1 kingofthehill5 2018-10-28
That's why they keep screeching about ai robots they think the robots will do the work.
1 Sniffposter30 2018-10-28
I'd rather be left to starve in a slum than be considered equal to chapotards
1 Harbinger147 2018-10-28
Holy fuck are communists absolutely retarded. How in the fucj have they gotten so bad and half the procapitalists are being downvoted. All the communists subs on reddit need to be banned.
1 HolyWarsPunishment 2018-10-28
Communism is like flat earthering. It shouldn't be a debate. We have countless experiments to draw on, and very simple economic and social theory that explains the results of those experiments.
In short, incentives. Central planning is extremely difficult, largely impossible, the world is impossibly complex and trying to plan things centrally is the worst way to approach this complexity. Per incentives, humans act in their self interest. Any system that ignores or wishes this away is working horribly and unfixably uphill.
Two very, very simple things which commies refuse to contend with.
They should just be honest and say "we are looking for loot, we are co.ing up with justifications for dragging down successful capitalists we don't like and taking their money and status."
That would be a lot more honorable than this whole song and dance social economic theory they pretend to believe in.
1 GandalfTheGay_69 2018-10-28
I like that they always say "but if it works", okay buddy stop right there. Communism literally can not work, why the fuck would someone study for 10 years to become a doctor if he's going to make the same amount of money as someone who didn't study at all, why work hard when you don't need to. If everyone has the same amount of money everyone is poor. Without delving into the situation of the ussr, just look at how fucked up the DDR was compared to the BRD, that area is still suffering from that amazing ideology.
1 barbadosslim 2018-10-28
lmao
1 Whaddaulookinat 2018-10-28
Sigh seriousposting is Haram I know but...
Current mechanisms that keep capitalism afloat are fairly abstract and there's nothing really pointing to that ownership/work/consumption have to be as separate as we have today. The idea of "shareholders are the only important stakeholders" system found in the US today is pretty much an accident of tax and corporate law. That and the incestuous nature of BoGs and their direct employees (CEOs et al) has crippled reinvestment in critical industries.
There's easy ways to widen ownership, make BoGs more responsive to different stakeholders, and increase economic growth but the current C Suite class have pretty much enriched themselves despite being employees and by and large fairly replaceable and created the mythos the US has about the job type.
1 JoeFalchetto 2018-10-28
Coop can and do esist though. Nobody is preventing them from existing - at least in the US or in the EU.
Can they innovate like and compete on a global scale with more typical corporations? So far not really.
I do not think there is one coop in the 100 largest companies in the world. I doubt there is one anong the largest 1,000.
1 Whaddaulookinat 2018-10-28
If you count German union(or worker)/shareowner co-ownerships that number jumps up pretty dramatically: second biggest auto manufacturer, fourth biggest bank, and one of the biggest tech firms. Plus... A whole lot of the biggest firms are straight up SEOs (Aramco/Gazprom for instance).
Co ops I think are good ideas but only if orders of operation plan for scaling, which many do not especially in the US.
And it's not like outsider investors should get iced out of decisions, in fact I'm very for investor governance reforms that would help keep boards accountable to them instead of the C suite they employ.
I'm a bit of a radical, but would love to see easy enough reforms that would have big impact.
1 LSU_Coonass 2018-10-28
this is literally not true in the us today, most large corporations operate off the triple bottom line, only small businesses don't and that's because they can't afford to.
1 Whaddaulookinat 2018-10-28
While laudable knowing a while lot of board members it kinda seems like window dressing tbh and to say most is a bit of a stretch. Few major corporations are established as B Corps even though that's an easy way to do it.
1 aX10mAt1CaL1Y 2018-10-28
But... the music!
1 allanmes 2018-10-28
yeah censorship!!!! Just what reddit needs more of!!!!
1 mrv3 2018-10-28
Ah yes because if no one worked I'm sure people will still build iPhones, clean the streets, collect garbage.
LSC kiddies don't hate work, or capitalism. They hate that they'll have to work.
They don't dream of living as a serf in Soviet Russia, they dream of being in the party life.
1 egalroc 2018-10-28
Interesting choice of words. The Communist party in Soviet Russia was small and most workers weren't invited to it.
1 Vegan_dogfucker 2018-10-28
I think that's exactly his point.
1 demotecontrol 2018-10-28
Hmmm. My understanding was that in order to join the Soviet military you had to be a member of the Communist Party, and as I really don’t believe that the sons of powerful KGB agents would particularly want a junior enlisted position I wouldn’t be surprised if just being a member didn’t mean shit.
1 xXsnip_ur_ballsXx 2018-10-28
No matter what system of government you have, there will always be about 200-300 people who hold real power. Anyone outside of that falls in line based upon well-established lines or else has such little influence that they are extraneous.
1 UpvoteIfYouDare 2018-10-28
Replace "200-300" with a proportion and then realize that even those at the "top" are still utterly helpless to the ebbs and flows of society. Nobody is really "in control".
1 xXsnip_ur_ballsXx 2018-10-28
Of course the ebbs and flows of popular opinion makes up the sovereign "general will" which determines the direction of society. I'm more talking about governmental, institutional power.
1 UpvoteIfYouDare 2018-10-28
Lol, I'm not talking about "general opinion". I'm talking about things like demographic trajectories, cultural shifts, economic velocity, etc. Society is a giant churning mass, and our institutions are just reflections of their underlying participants. I'm a fan of Conway's law and I like to think about human institutions with it in context: we are constrained to produce institutions that are a reflection of our own underlying social currents. It's hand-wavey, I know, but I only use it to try and get across the basic idea.
1 kanatakon 2018-10-28
In order to advance far up the chain of command? Yeah. But ever soviet man served at least a few years in the army, and plenty of officers never ended up being party members
1 Tasty_Treat_4_U 2018-10-28
If they bring about the Revolution they should be entitled to it no? All those neoliberal kiddies can toil in the fields while the red hats are put to work in the salt mines of Kessel.
1 ironicshitpostr 2018-10-28
Who wouldn't want to be a low-level apparatchik in post-Stalin Soviet Russia
1 herbmaster47 2018-10-28
I don't mind work, I just don't like being hungry afterwards.
1 barbadosslim 2018-10-28
if no one worked that’d be dope. have you ever done it? shit sucks
1 MeowIsaac 2018-10-28
Yeah for some reason they don't think that communism would mean they'd have to work even harder with pretty much no luxuries to go home to
1 dootwthesickness_II 2018-10-28
This is why they start to salivate at the mouth and take on Biblical tones when they talk about climate change. On some level, the idea of society being catastrophically torn down excites them.
Of course, they're completely delusional. This isn't what happens during major catastrophes. There are three well-documented plagues--the Antonine Plague, the Plague of Justinian, and of course the Black Death--that killed from 30% to 60% of Europe's population, and after each one, the social order emerged pretty much unchanged. And these happened in pre-modern societies, where the state didn't have access to wiretaps, drone surveillance, or metadata, and where the masses were accustomed to physical labor and hardship.
Climate change will affect our politics, of course, but it's going to speed us to more centralization and authoritarianism, not less.
1 aslak123 2018-10-28
What the fuck are you on about. The social order was changed massively by the plauges. The life of the average peasant was masiively improved because there was less competition for land. They also quickly became valuable workers rather than replacable pawns and their living standards rose accordingly. Sure it didn't end fudalism, but it certainly took a massive step in that direction.
1 dootwthesickness_II 2018-10-28
Sure, the start of the Italian Renaissance can be roughly lined up with the first generation that was born after the Black Death. But even then, capitalism was just a weird system practiced by a few Italian city-states, and it was practiced under the patronage of the feudal elite. It was the opening of the Atlantic to trade that ended feudalism, and even then, the system carried on for like 300 more years.
1 aslak123 2018-10-28
Sure. Here in norway feudalism never really existed in full force because of the black death, as well as the natrually sparse population due to the shitty farming prospects.
1 Corporal-Hicks 2018-10-28
Ive heard it from a few different sources, but the only things in our existence that has been successful in solving income in-equality is famine and war. Because both kill indiscriminately and open up the playing field for the lower classes.
1 aqouta 2018-10-28
I love how they assume the wealthy are going to just murder everyone who isn't useful to them because that's what they'd do in their position.
1 A4QualityPaper 2018-10-28
Lets be real they are. Not the right wing of the rich but the liberal rich. They'll see it as a sacrafice needed to save the world after all humans are cancer etc etc etc
1 aqouta 2018-10-28
If I was rich in the fully automated era I'd get my ass in a spaceship with mu loved ones and get the fuck out of dodge leaving behind whatever means of production would keep the plebs happy. No one is going to get killed over landrights to your shitshack in a dumpster state.
1 westofthetracks 2018-10-28
uh, they absolutely will if those people start seeming like a problem
1 Pinksister 2018-10-28
It's like murder is their fundamental tendency. The answer to any problem is murder. In debt because you picked a useless major and can't find a job? Murder. The poor son of a bitch who eventually hired you makes more money than you? Murder. Someone holds an opinion about communism/murder which differs from yours? Oh you better believe that's a murder.
1 FTFallen 2018-10-28
The world not being a fucking dystopian preteen novel? 350 million guns in the hands of private citizens in just the US? idk
1 okedtsuj 2018-10-28
muh guns
1 FTFallen 2018-10-28
muh giant death robots
1 LordAndSaviorHaskell 2018-10-28
I think most people just call them 'drones'
1 heavenlytoaster 2018-10-28
Damn I was hoping for Gundams IRL
1 Shitposting_Skeleton 2018-10-28
IMHO if I got admin rights to the entire world combat drones I'd totally go on a murder spree.
1 UmmahSultan 2018-10-28
Also most rich people are extroverts (or at least not supervillains) so wantonly killing people isn't itself productive. The goal of getting rich is not to have an empty planet to yourself.
1 wwaalleess 2018-10-28
I've literally never met a commie in my life but for some reason outspoken commies make up a significant portion of reddit.
Makes ya think 🤔
1 Vladith 2018-10-28
If you know a hundred millenials you probably know one or two commies
1 Fletch71011 2018-10-28
I'm honestly starting to think these people are worse than the_Donald regulars at this point.
1 Gay-Cumshot 2018-10-28
They are, no question
1 egalroc 2018-10-28
TIL that Donald Trump ain't no capitalist. Ain't no calluses on that boy's hands. Ain't none now, ain't never been.
1 Xenepa 2018-10-28
Lol after engaging with him I just checked his posts
active in
I'll let you draw conclusions.
1 ChristyCMC 2018-10-28
Capitalism is the epitome of selfishness.
1 ironicshitpostr 2018-10-28
That's why it's good tho
1 barbadosslim 2018-10-28
oh no it’s retarded
1 westofthetracks 2018-10-28
when you know what words mean
1 barbadosslim 2018-10-28
chapo’s great
1 Chauncy_Prime 2018-10-28
I always wonder about these Stalin wanna-bes looking down on the all of us boot-lickers. How do they sustain themselves? What is their economic position that gives them the ability to be so blasé about not going to work. I enjoy living in a decent home, driving a car and not walking, getting to choose what im going to eat, electricity, hot water out of the tap. Where the fuck do people think this shit comes from?
1 spookyguy109 2018-10-28
Thanks for the nightmares fam