Capitalists and their shills

Capitalists and their shills
Also capitalists and their shills
Why do capitalists suddenly love vast centralized organizations which control huge amounts of resources across economic sectors?

Other urls found in this thread:

dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/quito.pdf
paulcockshott.wordpress.com/2016/07/01/interview-by-jo-cottenier-ptb/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Because they hold no actual beliefs besides money being good.

That always has made me cringe a little when libs talk about how "centralization / planned economies = bad" then we have to sit and listen how Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos are literally going to change the world for the better through technology


Also, they've always loved this. I don't know how you can say it's sudden. They always have loved this. As long as you can distinguish between ideas and whether they dismantle or reinforce private property rights… well, you can usually figure where libs will be

What's worse is when so-called "leftists" do this honestly.

"Centralization" is bad though. Just saying.

Why do you hate efficiency?

Capitalism always has been pro-centralization.

Centralization =/= a powerful state.

You can in fact make a more laissez-faire economy or even society by eliminating local institutions that used to regulate laws more extensively. (See the abolition of guilds, the Civil Rights movement in America, Reconstruction.)

Centralization is in fact necessary to capitalism. The "communist" states of the 20th century in fact exhibited in the epitome of capitalist behavior. Stalin and Trotsky's brand of central planning essentially mimicked what capitalists did in Britain but at a far faster and vicious pace. You need to centralize the population to a few societies to create the proletariat who would work for said capitalists. You need centralize the state to remove the old regulations that benefited the craft guilds, small farmers, and even the older pre-capitalist elites.

I mean, MARX of all people wrote about this. (And, he even complimented the process.) Take your ideology glasses off, stop eating from the trashcan, and realize that capitalism is a system/class, NOT an idea/ideology that people voluntarily believe in. The modern usage of the word "capitalism" is just trash from the garbage can, and OP is eating it, ironically like a pig. Think materialistically, about economic conditions and classes, not about ideas competing with each other.

Daily reminder that it was the Federalists who were in league with those with the big money and economic clout, while the anti-Federalists/Democratic-Republicans were mostly small farmers who had extended their hands towards the nascent working-class many times.

Completely planned economies have been proven to be rather inefficient, considering the Soviet Union's frequent misallocation of resources. (Do note that laissez-faire economies also suffer from that same effect. Nations require varying degrees of regulation and control by the government.)

Even besides that, isn't the single-minded attention towards efficiency EXACTLY the force behind capitalism, especially of the Taylorist sort that treated workers are little more than cogs in a machine. Capitalism is quite efficient. Just at reaping profits for the capitalist class. This especially true for neoliberal, globalist capitalism, which gives the capitalist class various tools, both social and economic, to essentially crush and even ultimately destroy the working-class, who had a period of relative economic prosperity and empowerment from the mid 20th century to the 80s.

It took America 150 years to develop the wealth that Russia did in 50.

Stop being a brainlet.

You need to read you moronic niggers. Also, using "brainlet" as an insult is a trait most associated with morons and newfags. It's a shitty meme.

Russia had the benefit of having the example of Western Europe to follow as well as more modern technology. Additionally, many Western capitalists actually did invest in the Soviet Union. (The Koch brothers' ancestors being an example ironically.) The Western Allies also gave aid to the Soviet Union during World War 2 in terms of equipment.

Of course, industrialization is not the only value a society should be judged by. Again, YOU are the one promoting capitalist values of promoting raw industrial production and Taylorist efficiency over the well-being of workers and peasants. Britain and the US are just as guilty of crash-industrializing, though the latter did so by importing a new population instead of crushing the existing one.

What's your point? This support had minimal impact in the russian war effort. Soviet victory was achieved due to various factors, the most important one being the mass production of military soviet-made equipment by factories in Siberia.
The winter of 1941, the mud and railway gauge differences had more impact than the lend-lease program.

Nice strawman! Ill be sure to use this one later user

What the hell Is that image?

fuck of ayncrap no one here is going to buy your bullshit and let you be big porky boss of us

Yeah, like 40% of the food went uneaten, no wait that's USA today.
To suggest capitalist economy is a more efficient form of resource allocation is retarded.

checked
Capitalism transformed this world and made this world a better place to live. That however doesn't mean it's still efficient.

Why do you need thousands of merchants just to get a laptop? We can communicate with anyone anywhere on planet in moment. We have computing power likes of which mankind never seen. "Getting a job" is artificial problem which can be easily abolished tomorrow, and we can have livestream from international moon station within 10 years.

Because none of them had the tech to properly plan the whole economy, which only exists as of recently: dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/quito.pdf

Here Paul Cockshott talks briefly about the little role that economic planning actually had in the USSR; the Gosplan had little staff when compared to the Ministry of Industries and in practice only a few thousand products of the economy were planned (a fact cited in the previous paper): paulcockshott.wordpress.com/2016/07/01/interview-by-jo-cottenier-ptb/

Currently, countries such as Cuba and North Korea don't have the infrastructure for such a planning project, and China definitely isn't willing to due to the pro-capitalistic character of their ruling party even if some anons here shill it as Actually Existing Socialism™

Thus, and contrary to the tanks making excuses to defend the failure of the USSR, I believe you are mostly right in these two paragraphs since capitalistic policies (the NEP) were seen by figures such as Lenin as a necessary step to develop Soviet infrastructure before building socialism. Thing is that, as already said, the tech necessary to properly plan the economy wasn't actually available until the 2000s, which is why the USSR had to develop a huge bureaucracy which eventually took class interests of their own and expressed them politically in the CPSU, paving the way for full-on capitalist restoration with Khrushchev, Gorbachov and all the leaders in between.

The USSR was a experiment way ahead of it's time and people make their way to vilify it as much as possible, to make sure no one would even think of replicating it with the technology and infrastructure currently existing in developed countries. As implies, our current capitalism of trading bots and targeted advertising through data mining is perhaps the most inefficient way to distribute the goods produced by society. Why not repurpose all that wasted computing power for a huge distribution program that accounts democratically for consumer demand?

Everything else you said is good though.

uneducated farmers from the early 20th century and working only with pen and paper are bad at allocating resources. what a fucking shock, right?

That's a weird way of spelling "Plantation owning slavers."

what does more wealth create, if not more well-being?
I don't know how you think economies work, but in order to stop having everyone so poor your infrastructure is in need of constant upgrades, and that requires surplus production.

America's only value early on came from tobacco and the arable soil they possessed. Russia is one of the wealthiest nations in the world materially speaking.

Russia also only had it's arable soil as it's main economic resource. Also, unlike the US, it had a feudalistic lord-serf system hindering it's economic development.

And so is the fucking US. Oil, coal, gold and natural gas. They have and had all of them.