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.
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?
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).
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
Other than creating a chokepoint for government censorship of the internet, of course.
Multiple corporations and multiple local businesses and non-profits owning the means of dissent does not cause me nearly the distress that one single entity with direct motivation to stifle speech owning those means would. Nothing is perfect, because humans are flawed. But, competition helps keep the conflicting interests of large groups of people in check.
I find the notion of one point of control to be frightening, especially if that one point of control is in the hands of the people that the citizens would most need to be able to speak out against. As bad as AT&T may treat its customers, they don't have the power to imprison them or execute them; governments have that power. And, if things are bad enough from AT&T, I have options; none of those options may be great, but I do pretty much always have options, and those options are getting better as providers compete for more of the pie. FiOS and 3G/4G/WiMax have become viable broadband options in many places in the US, just in the past couple of years (I use 3G/4G Internet because I travel full-time).
There is nothing perfect in this world. But, a competitive landscape is safer for little guys like me, than one in which I have no choices.
Without a single entity, a powerful government, breathing down their neck, your multiple corporations would merge or form a cartel, because they can make more money that way.
That's debatable, but it's not an argument against having government and business and non-profits and individuals able to keep each other in check. Again, competition and having organizations with cross-purposes having to work together to peacefully co-exist seems to result in better outcomes for most people. Again, nothing is perfect. But, unchecked power is scary, and a world with only one powerful organization (whether it be government, the mafia, a corporation, or a church) would be a terrifying one (and history provides many examples).
Also note: I have, nowhere in this thread, suggested the wholesale destruction of government and replacing it with corporatism (or whatever you want to call it). I have opinions on those subjects, but I'd rather we stay on-topic.
The muni broadband issue is about towns being allowed to offer free net connections at all. As is obvious to almost anyone, only free access is worth offering because the micropayment problem means you can't collect any worthwhile payment for the service. A town could offer throttled wifi along a main street for a hundred dollars a block - an amount too small to break up among the thousands of visitors over the next years, and this tiny expense could easily pay off in tourist dollars captured, etc.
The telcos want to retain their captive market (the townspeople and tourists) and want barriers on sharing to do so. Remember, every cookie you bake and share with friends is theft-of-potential-service from a local bakery!
As for competition, no. That's clearly wrong. Everyone agrees that the waste from multiple sets of roads would be too much and the state maintains a monopoly on roads, etc - delegating this (toll roads) but never letting go of it.
Some things are natural monopolies. While maintenance of a sewer may be contracted out you don't see many parallel competing sewer systems. It'd be a waste. Heh.
As for what we know about market economies, we know we've never seen a communism that wasn't a totalitarianism from the beginning. Basing anything on a few obviously horribly twisted examples is wrong.
And lastly, don't conflate state ownership with state regulation. You may have to pay for the EM spectrum your wireless ISP uses - because it's everyone's spectrum and you are blocking it from other use, but that doesn't mean the government necessarily has any control over it beyond collecting payment.
food available in US supermarkets was a point of amazement for them.
How much will this eye-pleasing superficial variety matter once you and I can no longer afford to buy anything tastier than petroleum-based "cheese product" (if the latter is even available following petrocollapse...)
And of just how much use to you personally are the two hundred brands of toothpaste? I'd rather have access to free basic health care and free education up to the Ph.D. level, as my parents did.
History has already given its verdict on the USSR. It was an abysmal failure.
History is in the process of issuing its verdict on Anglo-American-style market economies. Don't change the channel! It will be quite exciting. And, I'm sure, quite surprising to you.
People were poorer, corruption was worse, shortages of necessary goods were more widespread...
Yeah, compare the Western nations (with centuries of experience in industrialization, the thorough "domestication" of their masses, and centuries of accumulated rewards from the plunder of militarily-weaker foreign lands) to an empire created out of agrarian savagery and thin air in just a few short decades.
its perceived strength and unity of focus... turned out to be based on myth.
All societies are based on myth.
The experience of having your own foundational myths (say, financial success as a reward for hard work or clever enterprise) shattered should prove very educational. Remember my words in the coming years.
What's your point?
That Russia and its satellites were raped and plundered, rather than "civilized" as many Westerners seem to believe. That this was the specific goal of the West since at least Napoleon. That impoverishment-via-massive-theft of a whole nation is at least as heinous an act as that of a man who picks your pocket. That it is obscene that this is even a controversial position.
Try spending more than an hour visiting every produce store in your (hypothetical) town to find a loaf of bread because they all out of stock by mid-morning, and than tell me that a well-stocked supermarket near by is of no use.
Try going to your free dentist for a filling and have their drill bit break in half while inside your tooth.
Lastly, quality of many food products available outside of major cities was not much different from "petroleum-based cheese product".
What makes you think he is angry? He has a point. It is consistent. It might be false, might be true but most certainly it is partially true. He doesn't need to be angry to state his point.
By demonstrating certain naive views about soviet union, people here motivate him to try and shake their world picture in hopes that it would somehow fix itself a little.
Not that I agree to all the things he writes, but many Russians would. Many would not, but that's what pluralism is about.
I got the impression that he was angry because he kept on deflecting the conversation onto other countries. I commonly see that behaviour "in real life" from people that I would consider to be angry.
