Question about communism

[trendlover]

Quote from Martinghoul:

Simple, it's by looting the corpse of the Soviet Union and its infrastructure (poor though may it have been). It's not like these productive fixed assets got created overnight. They existed for years and if you were smart, ruthless and lucky you were able to take control of them to enrich yourself.

China was different, thanks largely to Deng Xiaoping.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes. "smart, ruthless, lucky" is different than hard work, or (genes), or free market, or skill.

I am not for the communism, but I see a big fake when some people say only the best, smartest and hard worker make capitalism work.
It is always about the money you have (before), the people you have the connection of, and who make the law.

 

[Martinghoul]

Quote from trendlover:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes. "smart, ruthless, lucky" is different than hard work, or (genes), or free market, or skill.

I am not for the communism, but I see a big fake when some people say only the best, smartest and hard worker make capitalism work.
It is always about the money you have (before), the people you have the connection of, and who make the law.

Well, to be honest, it doesn't really matter... Broad moral judgments of any sort are not really applicable in these type of circumstances. What is true is, as you say, that, throughout human history, both in the West and the East, a lot of the large fortunes were amassed through means that we would consider dubious nowadays. Russian oligarchs are definitely not the first and likely won't be the last.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Quote from trendlover:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes. "smart, ruthless, lucky" is different than hard work, or (genes), or free market, or skill.

I am not for the communism, but I see a big fake when some people say only the best, smartest and hard worker make capitalism work.
It is always about the money you have (before), the people you have the connection of, and who make the law.

like all economic systems, it is the people who corrupt and fuck it up with greed, corruption, etc.

the system isnt the problem.

 

[trefoil]

Quote from Martinghoul:

Huh? So when in 1928 and onwards in the Soviet Union, during collectivization, land was taken from the peasants, often against their will, and given to the collective farms, that wasn't looting? 'Cause, you know, this land was still producing while it was in communal ownership twenty years later.

It's a bit silly to say that looting isn't looting, if you take care of the property after you've obtained it.

OK, you're not being serious.
That collective land famously produced a fraction of what it could, precisely because it wasn't taken good care of. Russia used to regularly import American wheat. These days when it happens, it makes news, and the story is qualified by saying that Russia is normally a grain exporter.
The same isn't true of their mineral wealth today.
If it actually is true, why does Europe get so exercised whenever they threaten to cut off the natural gas? There wouldn't be enough gas in there for anyone to get worried about. They'd probably have to import the stuff, just like they had to import wheat during Soviet times even when there wasn't a drought.

 

[Eight]

There is communism and on the other hand there is communism as practiced in.. what year is it?? gadz!!!!!! 2011 nearly.. anyhow, Karl Marx was absolutely right, he said that the guy with the machines makes the money and damn, was he spot on... I'm scripting the heck out of this stupid Windows thingy and it can trade a lot better than I ever will be able to... I get hit with this shit like "the volume pattern shows that the trend is ending but what the hell are all these orders over here" and shit like that all day long and really, a little confession here is in order... I CANNOT HANDLE ALL OF IT.. it drives me bats sometimes but the computer, wow, HANDLES ALL OF IT ALL DAY EVERY DAY!! That Carl Marx guy is the greatest, the dude knew all this stuff like, what, a couple hundred years ago? damn!!

 

[Martinghoul]

Quote from trefoil:
OK, you're not being serious.
That collective land famously produced a fraction of what it could, precisely because it wasn't taken good care of. Russia used to regularly import American wheat. These days when it happens, it makes news, and the story is qualified by saying that Russia is normally a grain exporter.
The same isn't true of their mineral wealth today.
If it actually is true, why does Europe get so exercised whenever they threaten to cut off the natural gas? There wouldn't be enough gas in there for anyone to get worried about. They'd probably have to import the stuff, just like they had to import wheat during Soviet times even when there wasn't a drought.

You're being disingenous, Sir Trefoil, and you know it...

My point is simply that your "end justifies the means" type of argument doesn't work. You can't justify looting and expropriation of assets by arguing that the new owner will take better care of them and will be more productive. After all, regardless of how it eventually transpired, that was exactly the argument used by Lenin and the Bolsheviks. We all know how that worked out, don't we?

 

[Martinghoul]

Sorry for the typo... Meant to type "disingenuous".

 

[trefoil]

Quote from Martinghoul:

You're being disingenous, Sir Trefoil, and you know it...

My point is simply that your "end justifies the means" type of argument doesn't work. You can't justify looting and expropriation of assets by arguing that the new owner will take better care of them and will be more productive. After all, regardless of how it eventually transpired, that was exactly the argument used by Lenin and the Bolsheviks. We all know how that worked out, don't we?

Actually, I think you're missing my point. Yes, the stuff was looted at the beginning, no question about that. But in the USSR the looting just went on and on until the whole place fell apart. In modern Russia, there has been some establishment of stability and property rights. Their problem is not quite as severe as the USSR's was. You still have to stay on the right side of the government, but if you do, you're at least allowed to make money and keep what's yours, however you came about owning it in the first place. From a societal POV, that's better than first having it stolen and then continuing to steal from it with no one able to accumulate anything except the folks who were way up in the government.
It's the classic structure of a supply region now, where the only people who make money are the folks who either own the commodity wealth or who sell to the folks who own the commodity wealth. That's still an exaggeration, even, but as a shorthand description of the place it works.
There's hope for the place now, is my point, whereas there wasn't before, and the best example of that is that they are now normally a grain exporter, a thing which rarely if ever happened in the old USSR. The way you describe the place, nothing has changed from the old regime, and that's simply not true.

 

[Martinghoul]

Quote from trefoil:
Actually, I think you're missing my point. Yes, the stuff was looted at the beginning, no question about that. But in the USSR the looting just went on and on until the whole place fell apart. In modern Russia, there has been some establishment of stability and property rights. Their problem is not quite as severe as the USSR's was. You still have to stay on the right side of the government, but if you do, you're at least allowed to make money and keep what's yours, however you came about owning it in the first place. From a societal POV, that's better than first having it stolen and then continuing to steal from it with no one able to accumulate anything except the folks who were way up in the government.
It's the classic structure of a supply region now, where the only people who make money are the folks who either own the commodity wealth or who sell to the folks who own the commodity wealth. That's still an exaggeration, even, but as a shorthand description of the place it works.
There's hope for the place now, is my point, whereas there wasn't before, and the best example of that is that they are now normally a grain exporter, a thing which rarely if ever happened in the old USSR. The way you describe the place, nothing has changed from the old regime, and that's simply not true.

Actually, I completely agree with you... As I mentioned in another post, I am not applying random moral standards to what happened in the 90s. Like you I also happen to think that, regardless of how it actually came about, things are a lot better now than they used to be, for exactly the reasons you mention. We're totally on the same page, you and I, therefore, regarding the current situation.

I was simply objecting to your problem with me using the word "looting". To me, regardless of the eventual positive outcome, the rotting carcass of the old Soviet Union was looted and that's an objective fact, rather than some sort of a condemnation.