anon 0x4cb said in #2802 3w ago:
(https://mattellison.substack.com/p/10-hidden-truths-of-the-past-100)
10 Hidden Truths of the Past 100 Years by Matt Ellison
anon 0x4ce said in #2806 3w ago:
1) If I think about the Soviet Union in comparison to the US, was it really about managing populations, coordinating production and suppressing dissent? Seems to me like the Soviet Union was better at two out of three points. The main difference being that the Soviet Union sucked at efficient and good production and increasing or at least keeping the living standards. I mean, it was able to coordinate a lot of people to produce things. Not too sure but was the US really more controlling than the Soviet Union? Arguably the US is today more controlling than 50 years ago and that has arguably been a disadvantage.
3) Was this ever different ? Did democratic selections really select the experts ? Or was the past just governed more successfully/was the influence of the government/bureaucracy on everybody's life just less than in the recent decades.
5) Conformity is a form of authority. Has the post-war order maybe just lost the believe that liberalism is able to govern the future? Did the experts in the 70/80/90's notice that we are destroying the environment and noticed that society was still unequal and believed only a more authoritarian system can solve these problems?
9) Instead of a moral reason, Capitalism just seems to have the natural tendency to exploit any profit it can get in the short-term. The disadvantages of environmental damage were not priced in automatically. However at the same time capitalism is the only game that works in bringing up living standards.
3) Was this ever different ? Did democratic selections really select the experts ? Or was the past just governed more successfully/was the influence of the government/bureaucracy on everybody's life just less than in the recent decades.
5) Conformity is a form of authority. Has the post-war order maybe just lost the believe that liberalism is able to govern the future? Did the experts in the 70/80/90's notice that we are destroying the environment and noticed that society was still unequal and believed only a more authoritarian system can solve these problems?
9) Instead of a moral reason, Capitalism just seems to have the natural tendency to exploit any profit it can get in the short-term. The disadvantages of environmental damage were not priced in automatically. However at the same time capitalism is the only game that works in bringing up living standards.
referenced by: >>2807
1) If I think about
anon 0x4cf said in #2807 3w ago:
>>2806
> 1) If I think about the Soviet Union in comparison to the US, was it really about managing populations, coordinating production and suppressing dissent?
Yes it was.
Many of the Soviet Union's problems stemmed from its calcified bureaucracy. Brezhnev's explicit mandate was "no change, no firing of apparatchiks," and he delivered on that promise, halting turnover at the top which stopped promotion at the medium layer... As a result, young people faced a stark choice: either enter government service and wait 20 years for a bit of power, or buy jeans, become Stilyagi, form a rock band, and gain immediate respect from their peers. For most, it wasn’t a difficult decision.
When people here or on Xitter trash boomers for hoarding wealth and clinging to power no matter the cost - they complaining about a mismanaged population.
> 9) ... However at the same time capitalism is the only game that works in bringing up living standards.
The problem here is a lack of legibility. If we can easily buy and sell anything, that's capitalism. But when restrictions, regulations, or traditions come into play, even the description of the system becomes a tangled mess, let alone real analysis.
If you want to see how 70% of US-style capitalism can coexist with thriving nature, visit Japan. It's hard to describe, but technology, nature, and society exist in a kind of weird symbiosis there.
> 1) If I think about the Soviet Union in comparison to the US, was it really about managing populations, coordinating production and suppressing dissent?
Yes it was.
Many of the Soviet Union's problems stemmed from its calcified bureaucracy. Brezhnev's explicit mandate was "no change, no firing of apparatchiks," and he delivered on that promise, halting turnover at the top which stopped promotion at the medium layer... As a result, young people faced a stark choice: either enter government service and wait 20 years for a bit of power, or buy jeans, become Stilyagi, form a rock band, and gain immediate respect from their peers. For most, it wasn’t a difficult decision.
When people here or on Xitter trash boomers for hoarding wealth and clinging to power no matter the cost - they complaining about a mismanaged population.
> 9) ... However at the same time capitalism is the only game that works in bringing up living standards.
The problem here is a lack of legibility. If we can easily buy and sell anything, that's capitalism. But when restrictions, regulations, or traditions come into play, even the description of the system becomes a tangled mess, let alone real analysis.
If you want to see how 70% of US-style capitalism can coexist with thriving nature, visit Japan. It's hard to describe, but technology, nature, and society exist in a kind of weird symbiosis there.
Yes it was. ...