6 ms·

On the other side of the coin, there was little guaranty that most state run businesses would survive any way. Yes, some were bought up by by shady characters,

by sili 15y ago

On the other side of the coin, there was little guaranty that most state run businesses would survive any way. Yes, some were bought up by by shady characters, dismantled and sold of by parts for profit. However, others were bought by the likes of the protagonist of the story who invested in them and made them profitable businesses. The alternative would have been for those companies to become abandoned, which means they would have been picked apart by the locals anyway.

asciilifeform 15y ago
there was little guaranty that most state run businesses would survive any way. Why? Oh, because their immune system, that keeps parasites down (the State in question) was murdered. That's right, murdered. The alternative would have been for those companies to become abandoned Why? As long as the natural resources to run the farms continue to be available (and why should they not?) and Russians still want to drink milk and eat cheese (they do), the farms would keep going happily ever after. made them profitable businesses It is possible to get high-quality milk and cheese into peoples' stomachs without American notions of "profit" being in the mix at all. Is the sewer system in the town where you live profitable?
- SwellJoe 15y ago
  It is possible to get high-quality milk and cheese into peoples' stomachs without American notions of "profit" being in the mix at all. The evidence of this assertion is significantly lacking. I know several Russian immigrants; who came to the US during the Soviet era. The difference in quality and quantity of food available in US supermarkets was a point of amazement for them. Honestly, I feel like you're trying really hard to play devil's advocate rather than actually believe any of this stuff. It's just too outlandish to believe someone would try to present the USSR as a successful, functioning, state. History has already given its verdict on the USSR. It was an abysmal failure. In fact, now that the walls preventing communication have come down, and people are able to speak freely about how things really were, we know things were worse in the USSR than we in the US ever realized at the time. People were poorer, corruption was worse, shortages of necessary goods were more widespread, the state itself was in a much more chaotic state most of the time than we ever imagined (the US feared the USSR, because of its perceived strength and unity of focus; but most of those fears turned out to be based on myth). Is the sewer system in the town where you live profitable? In some cities in the US (and probably Canada, as well), water/sewer is provided by a private, presumably profitable, company; private co-ops are also common. They operate under strict guidelines and regulations at both the local and federal level (for safety and to insure low-income families have access to clean water and sewer service), but it's not all that uncommon, and I'm unaware of anyone raising a fuss about privately owned utilities (power, garbage service, and communications, utilities are all frequently privately owned in the US and Canada). What's your point?
  - xxpor 15y ago
    > I'm unaware of anyone raising a fuss about privately owned utilities (power, garbage service, and communications, utilities are all frequently privately owned in the US and Canada) That's not true at all. Net neutrality? Muni broadband plans being blocked by the likes of comcast? Infrastructure should be state owned, because duplication is a huge waste, and there can't be a normal level of competition because the start up costs.
    - SwellJoe 15y ago
      Net neutrality? That's a different issue. That's a question of whether privately owned communications companies should be regulated to enforce some level of fairness or equal access. I don't know any net neutrality proponents pushing for state takeover of AT&T, Comcast, etc. Is that what you're suggesting net neutrality is really about? You think it's a baby step toward state ownership of communications? And, you think that's a good idea? Government owning the means of dissent seems extremely frightening to me. Don't conflate state ownership with state regulation. Muni broadband plans being blocked by the likes of comcast? Again, a different issue. One worth talking about, but not related to whether Comcast should be "collectivized". Do you honestly believe cities should take over Comcast operations within their borders? I hate Comcast as much as the next guy, but, I don't think city governments are going to do a better job than Comcast, generally speaking. Infrastructure should be state owned, because duplication is a huge waste, and there can't be a normal level of competition because the start up costs. Evidence seems to indicate otherwise. In areas where there is competition, prices go down, almost universally (including in industries where it leads to "waste", like power and communications). And, I think you're going to be very lonely at your meetings if you start a group pushing for the state to take over currently privately owned infrastructure. That's a pretty extreme position, and one I believe would be very hard to defend given what we know about free market economies vs. communist ones.
      - ssp 15y ago
        And, I think you're going to be very lonely at your meetings if you start a group pushing for the state to take over currently privately owned infrastructure. I'd show up. Nationalizing the communications hardware (the towers and cables), then having a state-owned company lease the bandwidth wholesale to private-owned cell carriers, doesn't strike me as inherently a bad idea. It is not much different in principle from roads being state owned. By eliminating the huge capital requirement to starting a cell carrier such a model would increase competition, not decrease it. The current price gouging on text messaging would disappear overnight for example, if anyone could just resell bandwidth. There would also be secondary effects where the handset manufacturers would not be as pwned by the carriers as they are now, so we could see more innovation there too. Now, the US Government is very incompetent in many ways, in part because the US political system is so broken, so it may in practice be a bad idea there.

by sili 15y ago

asciilifeform 15y ago

there was little guaranty that most state run businesses would survive any way. Why? Oh, because their immune system, that keeps parasites down (the State in question) was murdered. That's right, murdered. The alternative would have been for those companies to become abandoned Why? As long as the natural resources to run the farms continue to be available (and why should they not?) and Russians still want to drink milk and eat cheese (they do), the farms would keep going happily ever after. made them profitable businesses It is possible to get high-quality milk and cheese into peoples' stomachs without American notions of "profit" being in the mix at all. Is the sewer system in the town where you live profitable?

SwellJoe 15y ago
It is possible to get high-quality milk and cheese into peoples' stomachs without American notions of "profit" being in the mix at all. The evidence of this assertion is significantly lacking. I know several Russian immigrants; who came to the US during the Soviet era. The difference in quality and quantity of food available in US supermarkets was a point of amazement for them. Honestly, I feel like you're trying really hard to play devil's advocate rather than actually believe any of this stuff. It's just too outlandish to believe someone would try to present the USSR as a successful, functioning, state. History has already given its verdict on the USSR. It was an abysmal failure. In fact, now that the walls preventing communication have come down, and people are able to speak freely about how things really were, we know things were worse in the USSR than we in the US ever realized at the time. People were poorer, corruption was worse, shortages of necessary goods were more widespread, the state itself was in a much more chaotic state most of the time than we ever imagined (the US feared the USSR, because of its perceived strength and unity of focus; but most of those fears turned out to be based on myth). Is the sewer system in the town where you live profitable? In some cities in the US (and probably Canada, as well), water/sewer is provided by a private, presumably profitable, company; private co-ops are also common. They operate under strict guidelines and regulations at both the local and federal level (for safety and to insure low-income families have access to clean water and sewer service), but it's not all that uncommon, and I'm unaware of anyone raising a fuss about privately owned utilities (power, garbage service, and communications, utilities are all frequently privately owned in the US and Canada). What's your point?
- xxpor 15y ago
  > I'm unaware of anyone raising a fuss about privately owned utilities (power, garbage service, and communications, utilities are all frequently privately owned in the US and Canada) That's not true at all. Net neutrality? Muni broadband plans being blocked by the likes of comcast? Infrastructure should be state owned, because duplication is a huge waste, and there can't be a normal level of competition because the start up costs.
  - SwellJoe 15y ago
    Net neutrality? That's a different issue. That's a question of whether privately owned communications companies should be regulated to enforce some level of fairness or equal access. I don't know any net neutrality proponents pushing for state takeover of AT&T, Comcast, etc. Is that what you're suggesting net neutrality is really about? You think it's a baby step toward state ownership of communications? And, you think that's a good idea? Government owning the means of dissent seems extremely frightening to me. Don't conflate state ownership with state regulation. Muni broadband plans being blocked by the likes of comcast? Again, a different issue. One worth talking about, but not related to whether Comcast should be "collectivized". Do you honestly believe cities should take over Comcast operations within their borders? I hate Comcast as much as the next guy, but, I don't think city governments are going to do a better job than Comcast, generally speaking. Infrastructure should be state owned, because duplication is a huge waste, and there can't be a normal level of competition because the start up costs. Evidence seems to indicate otherwise. In areas where there is competition, prices go down, almost universally (including in industries where it leads to "waste", like power and communications). And, I think you're going to be very lonely at your meetings if you start a group pushing for the state to take over currently privately owned infrastructure. That's a pretty extreme position, and one I believe would be very hard to defend given what we know about free market economies vs. communist ones.
    - ssp 15y ago
      And, I think you're going to be very lonely at your meetings if you start a group pushing for the state to take over currently privately owned infrastructure. I'd show up. Nationalizing the communications hardware (the towers and cables), then having a state-owned company lease the bandwidth wholesale to private-owned cell carriers, doesn't strike me as inherently a bad idea. It is not much different in principle from roads being state owned. By eliminating the huge capital requirement to starting a cell carrier such a model would increase competition, not decrease it. The current price gouging on text messaging would disappear overnight for example, if anyone could just resell bandwidth. There would also be secondary effects where the handset manufacturers would not be as pwned by the carriers as they are now, so we could see more innovation there too. Now, the US Government is very incompetent in many ways, in part because the US political system is so broken, so it may in practice be a bad idea there.