Anyway what little meager juice that these ideological labels had after the cold war is now gone with china as king of the hill. We can all agree private investment = rapid growth, and state intervention both in terms of social safety nets and actively ensuring fair competition (where that is necessary—banking, anti-trust, food/med production, etc) = stabler economies (or we agreed on this for a few decades after the great depression anyway). It's what the point of the economy is—to serve the disproportionate interests of rich or the collective (one might even say... democratic) interests of people—where there remains substantive disagreement. I hope we can leave this farce behind that how we talk about ideology has any relation to how the terms were actually defined in lieu or acknowledging material reality for a change.
[–] reliabilityguy 1 day ago
[–] whoanoway 1 day ago
Because of internal corruption and external embargoes and a government budget that could fund a global cold war.
> collectivism
What kind collectivism can happen when anyone can snitch on their neighbour over made up reasons?
https://www.history.com/articles/kgb-soviet-russia-secret-po...
Just don't do the above, and you're fine.
[–] reliabilityguy 18 hours ago
The west also funded Cold War, and is not free from corruption.
> Just don't do the above, and you're fine.
How else would you ensure the purity of thought?
[–] throwaway27448 1 day ago
Well that's because we're a bunch of greedy bitches who never learned how to play nice with the other kids—capitalism. It would take a hell of a lot more wealth generation for humanity to justify this kind of economic dysfunction.
[–] reliabilityguy 1 day ago
Those that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it
It makes perfect sense. Citizens of USSR were poorer than their counterparts in the west, didn’t have access to the same variety of food, cloth, etc.
I do remember all these things from my childhood, and my parents made more money than the average because they worked for the oil and gas industry that paid extra. So, when people are trying to sell me the whole “collectivism” and anti-rich sentiment, I am a bit wary because no one can explain how “this time” is going to be different — it seems none of the activists/advocates actually lived in such systems, so they have no clue. I lived the consequences, and I do not want it for myself or anyone else.
I would say the point of the economy is to ensure that both the rich get what they want, but also to ensure that others are not poor and left behind. This is not the case today, and thus a series of reforms is needed. But it’s doesn’t make a believer for the “let’s abolish the rich” thing.