Here's a pretty good debunking:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-we-will-bury-you-without-firing-a-shot.942/
this post was submitted on 22 Nov 2024
179 points (99.4% liked)
AMUSING, INTERESTING, OUTRAGEOUS, or PROFOUND
741 readers
284 users here now
This is a page for anything that's amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound.
♦ ♦ ♦
RULES
① Each player gets six cards, except the player on the dealer's right, who gets seven.
② Posts, comments, and participants must be amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound.
③ This page uses Reverse Lemmy-Points™, or 'bad karma'. Please downvote all posts and comments.
④ Posts, comments, and participants that are not amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound will be removed.
⑤ This is a non-smoking page. If you must smoke, please click away and come back later.
Please also abide by the instance rules.
♦ ♦ ♦
Can't get enough? Visit my blog.
♦ ♦ ♦
Please consider donating to Lemmy and Lemmy.World.
$5 a month is all they ask — an absurdly low price for a Lemmyverse of news, education, entertainment, and silly memes.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
There has probably been a bond like cabal of oligarchs that never stopped
Yes correct the only people who had enough money to scoop up entire industries in the post soviet crisis were unsurprisingly the exact people who had been successfully bleeding the soviet system dry.
People like to say the Soviet Union was inefficient and that's why they failed and communism is bad.
Those people really don't like to acknowledge that capitalist countries instantly started a war on every front possible and attacked the Soviet Union since its inception.
Because Capitalists will always choose to force monopolies instead of allow competition to threaten them. And that goes for monopolies of ideas as well.
I mean.... Yes, but that also kinda ignores all the times the USSR stepped on their own dick for no apparent reason.
The majority of their military engagements weren't with the west, but were utilized to subjugate their own holding in central Asia. Mainly because Stalin went hard on Russian chauvinism and treated central Asians like second class citizens.
Just look at the first 20 military conflicts they were engaged with, very few really involved western powers.
Yes and also central planning seems inherently bad to me. If you've ever had the pleasure of listening to your boss's boss's boss describe what they think you do, it's like a game of telephone. There's a famous example of a laundromat that replaced its machines one year and wound up with a bunch of scrap metal so central planning factors this into the economy and now the laundromat is buying scrap metal on the black market to fill quotas. Just absolute worm brained shit because the people higher up in the hierarchy don't know shit about how to run a laundromat.
It all depends on what you're trying to do. Like, say we're talking about cars. With competing private companies, you can have one company that specializes in making the safest models, another that makes the fastest, and a third that makes the most fuel efficient. Different people have different preferences, so having more options makes sense, and cost-benefit analysis is a useful tool in looking at what features to cut or what research to invest in (provided you have enough regulation to prevent them from cutting out safety and turning the roads into Mad Max).
But suppose what you're trying to do is build a bridge. Well, the bridge pretty much just needs to do one thing, stay up. You don't need three different bridge companies building three different bridges in the same place trying to coner different demographics. You don't need the bridge to make a profit through tolls in order to pay for itself. You just need it to stay up. In cases like this, central/state planning makes a lot more sense.
Certain industries are "natural monopolies," meaning that redundancy is either impossible or extremely inefficient. An example of this is cable. It usually doesn't make sense for two different cable companies build their own whole infrastructure in the same place, and so most places end up stuck with a single choice. In that case, it's better for the industry to be state run, because then there is at least some mechanism for consumer feedback through the government, compared to a corporation with a monopoly that will just do whatever it wants.
There are reasons why large corporations have become such a large part of the economy, and part of it is that it's often more efficient to coordinate things on a larger scale. Sears is a famous example that tried to do things differently. They hired a libertarian CEO who hated the centralized organization of the company and restructured it to have individual chains and departments competing with each other instead of coordinating. It was an unmitigated disaster. It's just a matter of economics of scale.
Personally, I think a mixed economy makes a lot of sense so that the best models can be applied on a case-by-case basis, provided that corporations can be kept in line and prevented from doing regulatory capture. That's why I'm a fan of China's model. "It doesn't matter if the cat is black or white so long as it catches mice."
Seconded. Markets have a place and have built in feedback mechanisms unless they turn into monopolies and to the extent natural monopolies exist or need to exist, we need to be extra careful about building in good feedback mechanisms.