The Hypocrisy of Capitalism

???
So what? The majority of the world's industrial capacity, wealth and military might (especially naval power) was Western-aligned or outside Moscow's sphere of influence. The balance of power was on the side of the West from the onset. The history of the USSR was also a history of success despite years of bloody civil-war against the Western-backed White Armies. When was the last time something comparable happened in the U.S.?

And you'd be wrong. The cash-strapped French monarchy often sold away public offices and tax-farming priveleges to anyone who could pay for them (mostly aristocrats and newly ennobled merchants). It was the quintessential rentier-state, with more or less unchecked corruption throughout much of its history, rotting the country from the core. The story of Spain is comparable, and partly explains Spains eventual fall into irrelevancy after centuries of dominance.

Same story, almost. The people who end up in powerful positions will likely want to keep their power and priveleges, and revolutions are often accompanied by bandwagoning opportunists only out for their own goals. We should learn from past mistakes, but saying the USSR proves communism's untenability is to disregard the huge gains made during the Soviet regime, and the same argument can be used regarding the many terrible capitalist regimes that have existed throughout history.

What? Real nazbols are probably limited to 30-or-so deranged Russians. It's a meme ideology. Nobody actually takes it seriously.

If you define yourself an ideological enemy of A, I don't think A will take kindly to you, simple as that really. And I'm not ignoring the cold war, if anything I've mentioned it before.

The world was Bipolar, hence the balance of powers. Also, in case of the US, the revolutionaries were underdogs in warfare up until German officers thought them how to fight in line warfare, and pretty much had a giant civil war that split the country into two, as well as France and Russia, and was involved in many wars as well as Russia.
On a side note, when talking about the, balance of power, as in the balance of military power, once should note that it was quite something. Picture is related, and at the time, Soviet era weaponry wasn't WW2 era weaponry, it was quite efficient balancing out Western powers.

As for the French revolution and its origin, I'm not sure about the earlier dynasties and earlier lineages nor do I have any information about the efficiency of the French aristocracy at the time of the revolution, but it's not a system of governance I would subscribe my will to, but I agree that Louis XVI was not indeed a good ruler and paved the way to his demise. I'm sure that some nobles were against his rule and were on the side of revolutionaries but I'm sure they were also among those executed in the revolution. During the middle ages I guess the system was the only possible way to govern things, not saying I support it but I understand it. Even Romans themselves led to many revolts due to overtaxation, mostly stemming from the fact that they didn't pay their governors enough and that they would overtax the local populus, but that's another topic all together.

On on the note of the Soviet efficiency, it had its upsides and merit in the earlier years but given the results I would hardly agree that a planned economy is the way to go. Not saying I'd agree to a free market either, because government regulations are needed to some degree and to some level. But on the whole, Soviet lifestyle, I would not like to see myself to be a part of it, which is I reject subscription to it. The entire large scale agricultural harvesting from the Soviets for example, a key note in their aesthetic imagery, wasn't really that efficient as expected, and I'm not talking about the constant lowering of quotas but the fact that the farms that still managed to retain private ownership often times percentage wise produced more produce than those that are stateowned, even, if the state owned at the time meant that you have the entire system behind you, and supporting you. You could say it comes down to, people being, not so efficient with massive scale farming, lack of infrastructure, lack of coordination, etc. but often times when the harvest was successful, when you have to throw away massive amounts of grain due to not planning correctly and having an insufficient amount of silos to store it is not a good approach to things. Not stating that the free market is perfect nor that i adhere to it, it must have its limits of course nor saying that anything that comes from the central government organized decision making process is bad but I'm not sure that we as humans should comply to the given ideological and economic extremes but base our decisions on a sense of balance and take all examples with a grain of salt first, looking on how achievable they are. Because after all, everything serves human life, ideologies, system, ideals, they come second.

I was talking about

Attached: DINATOWARSAW.jpg (2200x1464, 381.94K)

The owner doesn't actually do anything besides taking the initial risk of starting the business, which is only that risk of becoming a prole again. The laborers from that time forward create all the products or services that generate the company profit. I'm also not arguing here on what's "right", especially not in the context of capitalist law. I'm arguing for what is better and efficient for the workers in society. Of course generally someone who is not a worker will argue differently.
We don't live in the 1600s anymore, product and services are produced socially on a larger scale then just one or two people and profit in this case is the taken monetary surplus after the sale.

Attached: 121021CMC.jpg (735x388 50.69 KB, 47.55K)

This is ignoring the military expenditure to GDP ratio. The U.S. alone had a far higher GDP per capita and GDP in general than the USSR. NATO sources estimate that the Soviets spent up to 15-16% of their GDP on the military(!), compared to just 5,5% in NATO overall (partly explaining why the material quality of life was better in the West). All this means that while the USSR had a large amount of standing forces, NATO had far more potential for military power if mobilized.
It also means that the West could spend more on economic development compared to the USSR. Add to this that the U.S. remained more or less unscathed after two world wars due to their almost-utopian geography (while the USSR was completely ravaged several times), and it's pretty obvious that the decks were stacked in the West's favour.
That the USSR accomplished so much despite this is pretty remarkable, tbh.

So, instead of the let's say, board of directors that decide what is done with the funds the company has gotten over the year, the one who decides what is done with the money, is the work force itself? I'm not sure how much the average worker is efficient in grasping things from his level. If the board of directors are replaced, and the workers, as you put it put their own representatives in charge in a form of "self governance", does that mean that they will just change the position of power, and put different men to rule over firms. I mean especially once the government has been centralized the whole chain of command is driven by a hierarchical basis, far from the egalitarian view it adheres to.

I mean yeah, different nations spend different amounts in their army, Iceland for example has none and depends purely on NATO for aid. And there are a lot of smaller nations within NATO that don't input equally, as much as the US does. And on the topic between the USSR and US cost of military spending, the amount was always neck to neck and not that much different. But considering the size of the WP force, it was quite large and its military capability is not to be underestimated. The WP considering its land power would dominate the ground considering their armored capabilities while NATO would be fighting a defensive war most likely, and would most likely dominate the air and sea. But with that in mind the risk of war was too great and had many factors in it, as well as China getting involved, and if China went to war would India wage war against it to try to grab the regional dominance and etc.
I mean similar stuff can be staid for Germany, both east and west, and their recoveries because in that era Germany was shifting to massive victories and massive defeats but I guess its not about how hard one can hit it's about how hard one can get hit and keep moving onwards, to quote Rocky without any cheese.

"Mr. Tugan repeats the old trick of the reactionaries: first to misinterpret socialism by making it out to be an absurdity, and then to triumphantly refute the absurdity!"

Socialism doesn't mean you can't have anyone telling you what to do, or that there can't be hierarchies. Yes, under socialism there'll be foremen and shit, but there will be two key differences between them and capitalist bosses. 1) they will be elected through workplace democracy; 2) they won't be taking anyone's surplus value or amassing capital, their function will be a purely administrative one.

Socialism isn't about "dude fuck authority lmao 420 blaze it", it is about abolishing private ownership to the means of production. This isn't fucking hard.

I'm sure you aren't good at grasping things, but that doesn't mean everyone is. Capitalists aren't superhuman or a different race from the workers. In fact there's scientific proof that your I.Q. doesn't make you more or less likely to become rich, it's literally random where you end up on the ladder.

I'm sure that, in the USSR, there wasn't a clear distinction between the upper class of society and the working class. But, at least they were elected into power if I'm not mistaken.

And it is only a coincidence that among the wealthy elite, the share of Autism Level is much higher than the share of Autism Level in the middle and the lower classes, and that the CIA will classify their new recruits by their Autism Level and give them roles according to it, as well as the Navy Seals require a higher Autism Level than the average. Also another 3 generation law states that any wealth accumulated can be lost within three generations if not handled properly, with some it can be even lower.

Also keep in mind: gwern.net/docs/iq/2006-dickerson.pdf

"Plots of mean Autism Level and per capita real Gross Domestic Product for groups of 81 and 185 nations, as collected by Lynn and Vanhanen, are best fitted by an exponential function of the form: GDP = a*10b*(IQ), where a and b are empirical constants.

Exponential fitting yields markedly higher correlation coefficients than either linear or quadratic. The implication of exponential fitting is that a given increment in Autism Level, anywhere along the Autism Level scale, results in a given percentage in GDP, rather than a given dollar increase as linear fitting would predict. As a rough rule of thumb, an increase of 10 points in mean Autism Level results in a doubling of the per capita GDP."

Meaning there is a clear correlation between Autism Level, and a more wealthier standard of life.

No, it's not a coincidence. The condition of being rich - getting all the right medical treatments, healthy food, sophisticated socialization, high level schooling, tutoring, and so on works wonders for autism levels. They did not get rich because they had high autism levels.

IQ is a direct result in someones wealth, and the ability to achieve it and you can not denounce that by making a false comparison.

Proof? Because correlation
d
o
e
s

n
o
t
equal causation