/edu/ - Education

>>7477
I looked at a few of the socialist subs on lemmy, they seemed to have lots of strange people who combine aspects of liberal social values and aspects of medieval religious fervor. Might check out the GenZedong community you mentioned tho.

I don't know if popularity is a desirable quality anymore, reddit is very popular but it also glows hard and many subs have ruling ideology enforcement.

Reddit use to be fun when it had more of the "hacktivist ethos" of people like Aaron Swartz, back when the internet was mostly free and corporate astro-turfing as well as state glowies were less able to wreck good communities.

I really like the picture in OP. More like it plz.

>>7602
A lot didn't and you can probably go find a different URL if you were so inclined.

>>7592
>some of the website linked can't be opened or is no longer there
help

>>7592
< The 1932 Harvest and the Famine of 1933 by Mark Tauger
< Natural Disaster and Human Actions in the Soviet Famine of 1931-1933 by Mark Tauger
where is the links for these?

>>7801
Just checked my files, those links are missing there too. My guess would be linkrot.

I can't archive anything because of OCD symptoms. Can anybody do the archiving for the pages? Or put links directing to an already existing archive of the unavailable pages? And the likes?

>>7526
This has been studied a great deal, people who have extra ordinary high intelligence, rarely turn up in positions of academic prestige or high posts in organizations. The people with genius level brains mostly end up in relatively mundane professions. Maybe our present societies lacs the appropriate interface for highly intelligent brains or something.

You're out of your mind if you think we'd paywall knowledge or learning in socialism. Quite the opposite we'd pay people to learn shit or get skills.

Scholarships are not an excuse to exclude the masses from knowledge or learning. It doesn't count as empowering the proletariat unless it's available to the entire proletariat.

>>7527
Most of mankind's problems are solved only after leaving the confines of schooling

>>7529
>Most of mankind's problems are solved only after
the proletariat takes over the reigns ?

The real problem is that college is over-promoted as the golden ticket to the good life.

.Most people think college is gonna save them from doing elbow grease hence why college expenses are so high.

>>7811
>The real problem is that college is over-promoted as the golden ticket to the good life.
This is inherently a left-wing problem. The leftist myth that all humans are born as blank slates with equal potential means there is no reason why everyone should not go to college and become brain surgeons. If they fail it must be some environmental cause like systemic-racism or not enough socialism.

>Most people think college is gonna save them from doing elbow grease hence why college expenses are so high.
College fees are high in western countries because the government guarantees the loans and the government has infinite money. Do you really think that greedy capitalist investors would give out $200,000 loans to 18 year olds to study gender theory otherwise? If you're smart you'll ask the real question which is what is the government getting from the universities in exchange for propping up their insanely high tuition fees.

>>7804
>Kamala is an alkie but I don't peg her as retarded
Even when I'm shitfaced drunk I can form sentences far more articulate and meaningful than her. That said maybe it's a mistake to perceive her incoherent babble as a mental deficit. She could be different behind closed doors, and the babbling and cackling does seem to be effective programming for a certain segment of the population.

>>7806
She received the Evil Programming and thinks this is totally normal, because in Washington, it is. They've gone insane in the capitol. She has to drink to live with what she's become. You'd feel bad until you remember these people have gone beyond Nazis in their evil.

>>7806
Intelligent, strong leaders who understand economics make millions as CEOs and entrepreneurs. Are you really this shocked that everyone who couldn't make it in the market and had to settle for politics is a spineless socialist who cannot string 3 words together.

>>7808
Bahaha the cuckoldry in this one is strong. Have you not paid attention to the giants of capitalism being plundered in front of your face? Elon Musk's faggotry is standard for CEOs - grift and scam while there is stuff to plunder. Let me guess, you're one of the tards who think Elon is actually good? If so, I don't know what to tell you.

>>7808
The title of "CEO" correlates with a 110 points intelligence quotient and sociopathy. Considering how much mega-corps are actually state subsidized directly and indirectly we have to consider CEO as some kind of welfare recipient.

By the way the average Marxist who actually read the theory correlates with a 150 points intelligence quotient. Please note the "Eye Q" points are not an objective measure of intelligence by any stretch. There is no way to correct for bias and as such it has to be considered unscientific.

The myth that capitalism rewards or harnesses great intelligence is best dismissed by the fact that the upper echelons of highly intelligent people find them selves in the most mundanes of profession far away from decision making. Empirically speaking capitalism promotes mediocrity and negative personality traits related to cruelty and deception.

Success in the market as measured by how much money somebody made is consistent with a random selection and follows a typical statistical thermal distribution as can be found in gas-laws generated by atom bumping into each other at random.
As a famous rock musician once sang: Money !, it's a gas.

You are also pushing an ideologically motivated false dichotomy where business and politics are separate. When in reality politics is mainly about economic interests.

Lastly it usually is the past-time of the spineless who try to suck up to the ruling class by describing them as having flattering traits.
The reality is that class societies rarely put strong and intelligent people into positions of leadership.

So, there is a huge thing about black Britons and Canadians being the superior intellects of their race, which given the eugenism of the English, suited them just find.

>>7738
>Empires always rejig and restructure their "system", as do most functional states.
No they don't adapt, when their systems begin to fail, they close their eyes to reality and double down on the old formula ignoring that it no longuer works. The British empire collapsed rather suddenly because they charged into the Suez crisis like oblivious morons, following the imperial recipe. The ruling class in the UK still tries to larp as great imperial power, even-though they haven't been, for 80 years. They send an imperial delegation to India , to lecture them about not toeing the line on sanctions against Russia, and the Indian government just ignored it. Look at the neocons, how they're running the US empire in the ground. They're continuing a strategy that doesn't work anymore.

>Empires ARE NOT ECONOMIC PROPOSITIONS
That's just ridiculous, do you think they run on volunteer work ?

>After the fact, the imperial religion declares that the imperial authorities command nature at all levels, or in the current rendition, ARE "Nature" and the ruling aristocracy is identified with Nature itself
I have notice that too. The ideology is a bit weird considering what we do to nature. Trees a nature and those get cut with chainsaws.

>>7746
This is retarded thinking. Empires are not autistic. The ruled are treated as if they are autistic, cajoled infinitely at the lowest cost possible. The present empire explicitly does this and has a scientific approach to alienating its subjects absolutely - declaring them "IQ 0". Past empires did this imperfectly, but never once did empires exist to offer the subjects nice things.

Do you not see your error? Everything you believe is premised on the belief that the empire gives its subjects nice things, and has been corrupted somehow by malevolent, impure actors, and that this can be corrected technocratically. Numerous assumptions about nature, human beings, information, history, reality, intelligence, thought, consciousness, and so on, must be inserted. The people who think autistically are not the rulers, who are perfectly aware of what they are doing and the distinction between them and those who will only be lied to. Ideology is for the slaves, who are taught to believe that the projection of power is power itself, and that "there is no spoon", to quote that stupid and infantile movie.

It is flabbergasting to me that I have to say these things, but I have to, because this stupid idea has been promulgated ad nauseum. Every time you repeat it, the masters smirk, knowing they have yet another rube. I try to dissect this, only to have to repeat myself. It truly is a mental illness. Basic concepts of what this is are rendered inadmissible, and they are replaced with this "total and unknowable system" that builds new contradictions to cover itself. The worst thing anyone can do is lie to themselves. Lie to others if you like - you should consider the consequences of this habitual lying, especially since ordinary subjects never believed in this - but if you lie to yourself, you are the only fool.

You see here that every concept of reality you hold is based on assumptijons on top of assumptions, which all much line up "just so", presenting a total system which is immutable and unknowable except as "contradictions". It's a pure magic trick, and you're an idiot for believing in it, when basic sense would tell you the folly and how this hasn't worked once for the slaves. Again, this was worked out as a science long before we were born. The Southern slave system was premised on such a science, the precursor to such habitual lying given a religPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

Who believes in this ideology? It is a religion for the courtiers who are kept out of the know and away from any lever - knowing just enough to push the buttons in the death camps. They're the slaves of the slaves, ad infinitum. Such habitual lying is the basis of every hitherto known slavery - that is, slave systems are always premised on a known lie, and glorify explicitly injustice in every deed and every institution supporting a particular slavery. The power of Lie is the point. This only works so far as knowledge translates into any material agency, and so it is always supplemented with a vast preponderance of violence. Therefore, slave patrols and the chief function of militias being to put down slave revolts, which they very effective at doing. It was the first such system, which if you understood American history and you clearly do not, is something the political class in America were perfectly aware of. No slave master is ignorant of how slaveries operate. To an extent, the slaves must be aware of the modus operandi of slavery, lest they forget their place in the order, and this knowledge is never limited purely to what the master pedagogically allows. The made-up history where masters immaculately controlled all information Negro slaves received never actually happened at the level of the subject. The slaves were perfectly aware that they were slaves, and would always be slaves - they would always be uyghurs, and the repetition of "uyghur" was deliberate and habitual. They wrote books on how to utilize language to this effect, and encouraged it among the slaves themselves. The full operating details of a slavery do not need to be known, but no one in a slave society believes slavery operates by unknowable laws. All operations of a slave system are knowable, even more than the knowability of anything we regard as nature or in the domain of science. Where science began with doubt and neutrality - humans are, by nature, alien to the world beyond the fact of their material constitution, and nothing about us is "dialectically tethered" to anything else by immutable laws - slavery begins with "perfect information in perfect systems", and seeks to remake reality in a given ecology in accord with the general plan of the slave system. This plan is always made by some rational agency in order to exist. Nature did not provide any slavery ready-made for us, for they are always institutions made by men, and enforced by men. If the slaves themselves enforce thPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

Just as the slaves are quite aware that slavery is a bunch of bullshit, those that the slaves are induced to kick down have always known that their suffering - the truest suffering and the true purpose of the human race in total, with no possibility of redemption ever - is wholly unnecessary, not even desirable as a quality in of itself. But, every slavery in history has been democidal and vicious. It is the core conceit of the commons - the technological interest - that slavery can be made automatic, efficient, and natural. By doing so, the common producers are convinced they possess a perpetual motion machine that feeds their social superiors whatever tribute is necessary, and eventually would allow the technocrats to usurp the proprietors and aristocrats - to become the new aristocracy. New nobles. New gods. This is the central imperial myth, if you know British and American history and the counterparts of such in most of the world. It is a particularly Satanic myth, and the rise of Babylonian Satanism and its priors was a unique event in human history. Every other such recurrence was long ago subsumed into the original, since an abiding quality of Satanists is that they always seek the greatest and universal Satan for any niche they inhabit. Where there were for example Chinese subjects amenable to the Satan, they were the first to abase themselves to the white conquerors, who were in that time the earthly representatives of Babylonian Satanism.

>>7666
>>communist nazion
A splendid joke fiftoid, now face the swinhole.
>industry ist corporati-
BLAM

>>7666
>See Communist China for the supreme example of Communism.
China considers it self to be lower-stage socialism building towards communism. They have different words for it and they use more stages. So currently they are in the primary stage of socialism and by 2035 they want to be in the stage of moderately prosperous society they have more stages for 2050 and then 2080 and so on.


>>7676
>China is only communist in name.
No they call them selves socialist. which means not yet communist.

>>7677
>That can't really be true when every major industry is nationalized.
The communist party in china hasn't really nationalized that much, only the heights of the economy, and often it's only partially nationalized.

Anyway they kinda moved past the system of asserting direct governmental authority with the big official hammer in order to influence the direction of their economy. Companies above a certain size are required to have a Chinese communist party carder and they can influence investment decisions to a considerable degree. It's a novel approach where they went for political influence over surplus allocation.

These carders them selves are subject to what the Chinese call deliberative democracy, which means they have to seek out the approval from the people who are affected by the decisions they make. It's a little bit like the mass-line in Maoism, but a much more localized version, with considerable autonomy from the party hierarchy.

The Chinese have been decentralizing power, delegating more decision-powers downwards in the hierarchy. I think that was part of rejuvenation of society or something like that, i don't recall the actual name.

It's peculiar that it's official policy from Beijing. In all of history there has been a tendency of power-centralization, and when i say tendency i really mean an iron-rule. All systems centralized into bigger structures and socialist projects were no exception. Up until recently decentralization has never come from the center, so far it came because of pressure from below or because power-structures fail (like the fall of the roman empire)

The Chinese have obsessively analyzed the dissolution of the Soviet system and the collapse of the Soviet block that followed. My speculation is that they're hedging against that.

A philosophy does not make directly claims about history or truth. It asks how the answer would be found, and almost never is philosophy dogma or totalizing in the way you presume. "Dialectical materialism" wasn't even used in Marx's lifetime, nor was it identical with Marxism or unique to Marxism. Marx for his part described it as "my method" and mentioned his tutelage under Hegel. The explanation in Capital is not one requiring as esoteric philosophy. It is an explanation intelligible to any student of classical political economy. The point of contention wasn't whether Marx had the correct philosophy, but whether his claims described reality or anything the critics considered relevant. Marx in Capital is not suggesting any necessary cosmology where you only could use his super special cipher to know reality. You could make the same claims without "diamat" or any Hegelian baggage, or claims similar enough to come to the same conclusions about capital. But, to deal with the subject matter requires clarity of what classical political economy was really about, and that's where the confusion sets in. There are those who claim Marx's argument is that political economy was a pseudoscience, but I saw the argument not as that - because economics was never a "science" in the first place and was never presented as such except by bad economists that Marx among others ripped into. Science in the genuine sense had already established that economics is not a science, and the subject matter was entirely alien to science. I saw the real claim of Marx being that capital was not what it purported to be - that it was amoral and could not be made moral, and money itself could not be made moral. Value was not a moral consideration at all for Marx, while it was for classical political economy - that is, none of political economy makes sense unless there is some moral purpose or reason why anyone would agree to this exchange, rather than just taking stuff or extracting wealth "in kind". Adam Smith's arguments didn't pertain to the workers - in Smith's estimation, the workers were slaves and had no say whatsoever in their circumstances, and weren't "really human" in the fullest sense. If the workers were "manumitted" and made something of themselves, that's super, but workers as workers had no rights. They were chattel under the dominion of the King and the Poor Laws, and the American rebels were little better and engaged in some foolishness - foolishness which his faction and bPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

Okay so with that out of the way, nearly everything you describe has nothing to do with socialism or commmunism as any proposition. You're describing a hyper specific unicorn as if it were a product in the supermarket of ideology, and yet this unicorn is never described as if it were something humans would actually use. This is intended and its a meme that was advanced because no one really believed in communism for a long time.

Even if you were seeking to describe this unicorn, or you were proposing those descriptors as a real situation which has nothing to do with historical communism/socialism, none of that requires a philosophical explanation of why it is natural and inevitable. For one, Marx never said "the perfect unicorn version of communism is inevitable and history will produce it with no volition whatsoever, yet the revolution will be bloody and I am the Evil Overlord Xenu". Communist parties were, like any political organ, active participants in history, and they always had programs written by the Party rather than an esoteric interpretation of unchanging dogma. So right there, philosophy and the theory don't make prophecies of that sort. Marxism was never predictive in that sense, and that's a common charge made against them. It didn't stop the stupider of them from hectoring others as if they did believe that, but most of that was the Marxist contempt for anyone they considered stupid or worthless, which is basically everyone who didn't get what this really was.

In the formation of their actual programs, and the platforms presented for the public - because this had to be handed off to actual people who had to make something functional - philosophy was far removed from the explanation. The Party theoreticians had to maintain fidelity to reality. Only when the wheels came off the bus - the 1950s and late 40s were the indicators that we were on the Evil Timeline - did the theoreticians retreat into kookville and turbocharged fads and pseudoscience, with the Secret Speech being so awful that good Soviet citizens had heart attacks after listening to such an abomination against history. It was that galling and insane.

The particular mental illness you're struggling with is anarchism, particularly Fabian-built philosophical anarchism. Let's deconstruct what you're writing. What does it mean to "democratically own the means of production?" If you think the answer is abasement to an abstract demos that will think for you, youPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>7669
>obnoxious moralism

Reading isnt the same as survival skills.

>>7086
>>7080
>imageboards totaly have no groupthink, glowies, horndogs, groomers, and racist trolls

ngmi

>>7672
morality is simply action brought into self-consciousness (Reason). you nietzschean animalz should be chained up

Then, perhaps we could have science. Those are the only conditions where it will be possible to speak of such a thing in public, or even sustain anything in private life where we can speak to each other without the insinuation came common to humans - now a Satanic race incapable of even the most basic honesty in speech or actions.

Or, they can, you know, stop attacking us, which is very simple and doesn't require anyone to die or any great technology. But, a Satanic race will refuse to cease their assault. If that happened, they start shrieking. It would be worse for them to not attack us than it is for them to be stripped and beaten and placed into their natural slavery. They respect slavery. They have no concept of the most basic notion of a free society, because they hate the idea of such and always have. A Satanic race and its members never, ever change regarding this.

Given what humans are now, humans would have to be effective abolished and irrelevant. There would still be human bodies and human-like minds, but they would be ephermeral existences and deemed irrelevant. The human subject would be deemed politically irrelevant in total, and human institutions could not be permitted any judgement. The human race would be judged permanently and incurably insane, and what remaining faculties they possess would recognize that they are a failed race and consider their political situation accordingly. It would no longer be a question of what humans "choose" to do, in that sense. There would be choices - they always come back to the interest of those entities who are the only ones who care about any of this, which is us. But, the choices would no longer be made on the basis of self-interest or a presumption of human rationality, because humans would be judged correctly as permanently insane and retarded by themselves. They would be forced to regard a world outside of them, and recognize the failure of any human institution and conceit is eternal. They would only know (a) there is a world, and (b) it is knowable, but it is one that human history has made clear humans have no ability to know because of their deliberate and repeated failure in the most basic deeds required for that. The remaining human knowledge would fritter in and out of existence, with the best of them recognizing the "kernel" or "seed" of genuine knowledge and science. It would be seen as dire necessity to feed a base of knowledge out of a sense that ceasing the habitual lying of an insane race like humanity is worth more than any political benefit of habitual lying and the thrill of torture that is now humanity's existence.

There is no aristocracy or "hidden world" where humans are allowed any sacrosanctity. The aristocracy and elite are why we are condemned to this. They were always insane and should have been ignored. In the past, this would have been very simple.

Perhaps there will be something in future history that works against the present trend of the eugenic creed. But, eugenics ensured that humans can never be anything else. If eugenics faces terminal defeat, they have already vowed a crusade of unlimited terror to restore their religion. Only a greater and eternal terror would even secure peaceful conditions where reversal of this tendency is possible. It would be a permanent tyranny at the least, and it would also forestall any political concept except despotism, which will be the final condition of human political life. Humans don't know anything else. This would probably be the best outcome compared to the continuation of the republican idea.

There is not, and never can be, the world of imagined "free individuals" that you all seem to believe is inevitable. That was destroyed very early on, and every time someone asked what would actually be necessary for that - or even to do basic things like "not start retarded race wars" - the shriek machine started, and fags got their way. We're supposed to kowtow to them apparently, rather than anything that would have been basic shit. Now, it went on for too long. The last time it could have been averted in human history was the 1990s, and it was basically an act of spite by that point.

Probably what will happen is a fatalistic existence of a few cells where people talk about these things, knowing that nothing will ever actually happen. The people who wanted a different world will enter cults and think only of an afterlife. Humanity is beyond any saving. The public was turned into this willfully and proudly. A Satanic race knows nothing else.

>>7520
>but probably less so in the Soviet Case.
Capitalism has a mechanism of competition to drive prices to SNLT.

What mechanism did your vanguardoid shit had?

>In capitalism GDP
All that can be accounted for

You can just take FIRE out

While in Soviet case you need to fucking look at energy consumption and shit to even get a rough estimate of output lol

>Calculated prices in socialist centrally planned economies generally are better a tracking rational resource allocation optimums.
Maybe in your imagination lol. In ACTUALLY EXISTING SOYCIALISM nobody even had ANY IDEA in what range SNLT was lol.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>7521
The Soviets lacked the computer resources to fully plan their economy, they still had to rely on partial markets.

Sufficient computer resources exist now, it's possible to make the planning system calculate the prices you would get from a perfect competition, without any market distortions from monopolies.

You only need the consumer feed-back to know whether people want a given product for a given price.

Markets lack a signalling feature for consumers to signal that they want a product that nobody is making yet. I don't know whether that can be added to markets, but for a socialist planning system, it's very easy to add this because there already is a polling system for surplus allocation priority, that makes it trivial.

Many other economic aspects will become easier too, you'll be able to establish new workplace simply by convincing workers to start contributing labor-inputs. That'll be much simpler than the complicated ways of starting a business.

The purpose of the vanguard will only be to bootstrap sortition democracy and socialist cybernetic planning, they won't have to make political and economic decisions. After the system runs it will reproduce it self. You won't need heavy handed political repression to keep it going, civil society will be able to defend this effortlessly.

If you're trying to convince anyone of socialism being right, "debunking" is a shitty way to go about it. It's a disgusting turbolib habit which always assumes imperious institutional authority to tell you what facts are, without any judgement or independent verification. Against shameless liars, they don't care if you debunk them, because their arguments are not intended to appeal to anything rational. They will invent new lies, and the truth is always irrelevant. The way to stop the shameless liars is to expose the full extent of their depravity and failure as human beings, rather than this habitual "snark" that is an extreme faggotry.

That said, debunking anticommunist arguments is kind of pointless because the communists debunked themselves by failing to make clear - or seeming not to know - what communism stood for. This is mostly because, after all of the posturing, the USSR and USA were far more similar than they were made out to be in the grand narrative theory of history. The Russians and those in their orbit identified communism with technology and their conception of mass politics. It was responsive enough to public demand compared to the old way where the rulers were openly democidal and slaughtered peasants without regard. The Tsars were a monstrous regime given this strange PR by anticommunist fags, and they are fags. Communism failed from within, and many of the anticommunist talking points came direct from the former Soviet Union and ideologues, whose objective was power more than anything good. Of course, all of the people in the USSR who wanted something decent out of it - and that tends to be most people who have an obvious self-interest in not letting this faggotry take over everything - were left holding the bag so that a few thieves could mock them. Most of the anticommunist arguments to "debunk" the USSR could just as well be used to dismantle the US so that the same thieves - sometimes the exact same thieves that plundered the former USSR - can do the same to the next large country, then the next, and so on. Nazis do not need to be creative, and that's what they are - goose stepping, motherfucking fags who have a fetish for this shit.

If you want an argument against "capitalist idealism", it's better to not even regard their facile arguments against communism, and attack capitalism on its own terms. Since the anticommunist retards don't have any core, and are perfectly happy to cannibalize capital to feed their thiPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>7522
So I might try some of these arguments, since Cockshott Gang is at it again.

I'll tell you why cybernetic planning was scrapped in the USSR - because the plan of the higher ups knew that the same thing was being done globally, and there was no further use for duplicating effort. The new economic plan called for eliminating most of humanity, who were useless to their preferred forms of society. After Khrushchev, all the upper rungs of the Soviet system thought about was how to sell out and get out while the getting was good, and then you had the scientists who wanted to be fed goodies forever and pissed on those who weren't worthy in their view. There's no "planning" that gets around that basic imperative that the classes that mattered followed, that the philosophies given to them insisted was natural and normal. When you uphold an amoral view of history and what we do, you're going to get the expected result. Gee, no one saw ZAT coming, right?

No one is ignorant of what the people want. The people, if they believe speaking of what they want is at all safe and not likely to get them killed, will tell you what they want, and have been willing to say this without too much prodding or effort. The rulers and favored classes never ever want to give the people what they wanted, because what the people wanted was security - which means they would hold a share of wealth, no questions asked or insinuations made. That would be the first condition before anything else is considered. Once the people have what they wanted out of it, they have no reason to regard the state or "society in the abstract" as something worth their efforts. Sure, there is a basic level of decency that allows society to exist, but beyond that, people want security. The Soviet system provided some level of that for enough people, and those who had no security were never going to be allowed that ever again. The Marxist view of humanity was just one of many views among higher society that held humanity in contempt and treated the lower orders accordingly. That's entirely on their own terms, and that spoke to the interests of the middle class generally. Everyone who lived through the USSR, and people who were alive then will tell you this, would tell you that the ideology and "the system" was rife with opportunism, rather than the source of good. The people who boost the system make abuPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

The market is not a planning mechanism and never was. Firms must plan their behavior in the same way a home-maker plans her expenditures. They do not actually believe the world is ruled by abstractions - and then believe that narratives far removed from the original abstraction actually has causative power in this spooky, Germanic way. The planning of a firm is not the same as a home, because firms have very different imperatives they meet. Large firms that hold monopolies have different imperatives from an imagined firm in "ideal capitalism", and this has long been known. Those are always prevalent over any ideological conceit about "the system", as if systems operated through spooky action.

All of this relies on portraying the USSR as this strange ideological unicorn "totally against the natural order", rather than what it actually was - a country modernizing much like the United States in the same time, doing so in very different conditions. The capitalists or what counted as such in the USSR were told they had to do business through the Party and the state, and this was seen as perfectly reasonable to those who stayed behind. Since the Party has its own imperatives - and they were the imperatives of the Party rather than "the state" in the abstract as Germanism insists - business was for a time subdued because the society was oriented towards aims it deemed necessary and useful. The idea wasn't to micromanage everyone's lives through GOSPLAN into eternity, and say this is immaculate "perfect information in perfect systems" - another Germanic perversion of sense. Planning through the Party and bureaucracy was a lot more effective for a lot more people than this idiocy that is done now. If you look at the USA between 1940 and 1970, the interested parties were some imagined executives in top hats or doing cocaine fueled orgies and scams. They were assholes in suits and intel ghouls who knew exactly what they wanted, and laugh at how easy it was to cajole retards into thinking they had a choice in any of this. The US was so big and didn't have its industry wrecked by Nazi invasion that it could tolerate a level of "market anarchy" - and this was largely the large middle class holding on to what they already held, rather than the market generating anything. Capital by that time had been exposed as a wholly unproductive "system" that was so ruinous that FDR had to work extra hard to get these people out of their own way just so he could helm this bePost too long. Click here to view the full text.