Communism

[KirillMazur]

Here I was accused of eclectic opinions, so I will try to give a short explanation.
There was such a Russian historian, Alexander Pyzhikov, who died the year before last. He used quite extensive material and convincingly showed (I will say a little from afar) that the Russian schism was actually a social schism, it just could have only a religious form at that time, ended in a real civil war, in which the Old Believers lost, but this loss squeezed the spring. which unclenched in 1917. Russia owes the success of the Bolshevik revolution to a colossal number of Old Believers, who constituted the bulk of the workers and peasants. From the very beginning, the Old Believers had tension in relation to the Russian Orthodox Church and in relation to the Comintern, who were mainly Jews. This interaction of the Bolshevik Old Believers and the working mass of the Old Believers with the Jewish representatives of the Comintern was the basis of Stalin's political maneuvering and strategic planning, which led to the cleansing of the Comintern in the late 1930s. Views on the economy, methods of stimulation (motivation for productive work), focus on reducing costs (Stalin) instead of increasing the profitability (after Stalin) of production, treating the USSR as a raw material appendage of the West or as a sovereign self-sufficient balanced economy, principles of party building, state construction - all this is evidence of the fundamental differences between the Russians (Stalinists) and the Comintern (like Otto Kuusinen, Andropov's "godfather", who was in turn Gorbachev's "godfather"). The Comintern was controlled by the Finintern, from the very beginning of the Comintern's existence, the entire Marxist movement was a project of the Finintern (which, in particular, is confirmed by current events and actions) and in any case, the principled approaches of the Comintern and the Russian Bolsheviks were obliged to contradict.
It was not for nothing that until the 1950s there was a clear distinction in the USSR, when a person called himself a communist, he was often asked a clarifying question - "Are you for the communists or the Bolsheviks?"

For a deeper understanding, it makes sense to refer to the sources. These are Pyzhikov's books and Bagaev's book, "The Presumption of Lies". Taken together, a very revealing picture is obtained. Each of them writes about his own and collects information using his own methods, but the puzzle is put together just fine.

In a simplified form - so.

[pulstar]

Here I was accused of eclectic opinions, so I will try to give a short explanation.
There was such a Russian historian, Alexander Pyzhikov, who died the year before last. He used quite extensive material and convincingly showed (I will say a little from afar) that the Russian schism was actually a social schism, it just could have only a religious form at that time, ended in a real civil war, in which the Old Believers lost, but this loss squeezed the spring. which unclenched in 1917. Russia owes the success of the Bolshevik revolution to a colossal number of Old Believers, who constituted the bulk of the workers and peasants. From the very beginning, the Old Believers had tension in relation to the Russian Orthodox Church and in relation to the Comintern, who were mainly Jews. This interaction of the Bolshevik Old Believers and the working mass of the Old Believers with the Jewish representatives of the Comintern was the basis of Stalin's political maneuvering and strategic planning, which led to the cleansing of the Comintern in the late 1930s. Views on the economy, methods of stimulation (motivation for productive work), focus on reducing costs (Stalin) instead of increasing the profitability (after Stalin) of production, treating the USSR as a raw material appendage of the West or as a sovereign self-sufficient balanced economy, principles of party building, state construction - all this is evidence of the fundamental differences between the Russians (Stalinists) and the Comintern (like Otto Kuusinen, Andropov's "godfather", who was in turn Gorbachev's "godfather"). The Comintern was controlled by the Finintern, from the very beginning of the Comintern's existence, the entire Marxist movement was a project of the Finintern (which, in particular, is confirmed by current events and actions) and in any case, the principled approaches of the Comintern and the Russian Bolsheviks were obliged to contradict.
It was not for nothing that until the 1950s there was a clear distinction in the USSR, when a person called himself a communist, he was often asked a clarifying question - "Are you for the communists or the Bolsheviks?"

For a deeper understanding, it makes sense to refer to the sources. These are Pyzhikov's books and Bagaev's book, "The Presumption of Lies". Taken together, a very revealing picture is obtained. Each of them writes about his own and collects information using his own methods, but the puzzle is put together just fine.

In a simplified form - so.

"Are you for the communists or the other communists?"

[Hasien]

I know for the fact communism would never make It to the United States, neither would let it's neighbor's Canada or Mexico to be a socialist/communist country.

[KirillMazur]

[KirillMazur]

Here is the new mainstream of political economy - James McGill Buchanan Jr. and Gordon Tullock. Enjoy.
Quote from Wiki:

Within the framework of this theory, the following are considered:

- officials and politicians who are called upon to fulfill the interests of citizens, but, in addition, pursue their own interests;
- citizens, civil society institutions, the media, which also have their own interests and try to realize them through officials and politicians;
- the state is a complex structure, which is arranged as a system of balances and itself is a kind of source of inefficiency.

The New Political Economy abandons the doctrine of an ideal state and government that cares about citizens. State institutions can have different interests, for example, the interests of the officials who make up the state bureaucracy and the politicians who are elected can be radically different. Situations arise when politicians and officials, in terms of institutionalism - "agents", pursuing their interests, agree among themselves, often ignoring the interests of the voter. Corruption can be a particular manifestation of these contradictions.

Buchanan J.M. Works. The Constitution of Economic Policy. The Calculus of Consent. Frontiers of Freedom / Nobel Laureates in Economics. Vol. 1 / Economic Initiative Fund. - M .: Taurus Alpha, 1997 (in Russian).

Do not hesitate, if they have "official" interests of their own, they will certainly prevail over yours.

[KirillMazur]

Do you know what is one of the biggest taboos in modern (capitalist) cinema? To show happy joint work for the common good. Labor in modern cinema is usually always shown as a kind of forced punishment, and exclusively for an unpleasant "private effective owner" or evil corporation.

[KirillMazur]

[KirillMazur]

As a joke.
Slavery is simply an employer's optimization of the costs of employees!

Right now you are running around looking for a job to pay for a rented apartment and debts, while you still need to buy something to eat. After paying for all this, you have nothing left but the obligation to pay the next loan. It is beneficial for the owner that the majority of the population lived like this, then he can dictate his terms on which you will work for him, and you will be forced to agree to them, because otherwise the bank will take all the property. If you cannot pay your debts, then banks begin to deduct them from your salary through the courts, arrest and sell your property, etc.

In the process of further optimization of costs and removal of unnecessary operations from the process, we logically come to a system when you are simply given a barrack, food, and the payment for them is immediately deducted from your salary, along with other debts. How much did you have left from your salary after the obligatory payments? Nothing and you are still a debtor? And now it remains the same, everything is logical. And since you are a debtor, we restrict your possibilities of moving, we assign a compulsory work off of the debt at the owner's enterprise, because you have no money, as well as property that has long been seized as payment for loans. Well, the debt, perhaps, will keep growing all the time, prices are going up (we have a free market!), and you do not work well, lazy pig.

This is how we suddenly came from the wage labor system to slavery!
I repeat once again that I wrote this purely for the sake of entertainment.

[KirillMazur]

[ixulescu]

This is not false, but communism didn't improve it one bit, just made everyone poorer and less free. No, thanks.