It's ok to be angry about capitalism

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
10,795
5,722
118
Country
United Kingdom
The main argument is that in 13th century feudalism your situation is primarily defined by who all your contacts and your family are, what kind of obligations and privileges each of these connections exactly entail. That is exceedingly more important than your "class". And as a direct result there is not much class consciousness or class struggle. Conflict lines were generally not drawn along class borders, it was generally between groups that formed when individuals called upon those obligations.
Without those personal bonds you are just some drifter/vagrant and there isn't even a difference between serf, commoner and noble. Because everything meaningful about your status is your connections.
You can't be a serf wihout the right to work a specific piece of land and a set of rights/obligations to one or several persons who have the rights to this land. You can't be a noble without either having gotten a fief from someone, being your own independent souvereign or being a vassal to someone else. As soon as those conditions don't apply, you are no longer your "class".
But those conditions /did/ apply. Almost across the board, in some late-Middle-Age European societies. You can't just say "if these scenarios didn't exist it wouldn't be X, therefore it isn't X", when those scenarios categorically /did exist/. That's the reality we're dealing with.

And as long as they /did/ apply, you were indeed stuck in your economic, social and political role, determined largely by birth. Unless you got fucking massively lucky.

Class consciousness and class conflict are not required in order for there to be class itself. That's just a bit absurd. Most conflict throughout most of history has not been class-based either-- largely because the ruling classes have been the ones with the ability to levy/conscript/go to war, and make others fight for them.

As for serfs deciding to no longer being serfs, there were ways (especially if we exclude Eastern Europe and the detoriation of the serf situation for a moment). And it happened often enough. But the choice between continue to be a serf and having a peace of land to work and all your connections nearby and being free any having none of that is not that easy. Especially if all you know is farmwork. Without land you only can become free landless farmhand, which is kinda bad and often can't support a family. Or doing something reckless and try to enter a new carrier without any contacts or knowledge.
But that touches inheritance again and what happens to children who can't continue to work the same land as their parents.
Yep, and occasionally working class people become millionaires in today's society. Guess we live in a society without class, then!

Pull the other one.

I know you try to dismiss the unfree nobles, but ministerialis were not only technically serfs, originally their ranks were filled from the regular serfs*, not from freeman or nobles. Though later children of ministerials got priority or one could become ministerial by marriage or in some cases by submission. You can find many instances where those nobles still had at least part of the duties of regular serfs, including corvée or in cases of woman household chores. In most cases that was replaced by military duties though.

*and also from a group named liberi that was technically free but still bound to a piece of land and with limited property rights and with martial duties
I'm not "Dismissing the unfree nobles". I'm pointing out that the obligations and limitations of an average noble's life were inarguably incomparable to those of the average serf. This is not seriously disputed in historical study whatsoever.
 

Satinavian

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 30, 2016
1,643
621
118
Yep, and occasionally working class people become millionaires in today's society. Guess we live in a society without class, then!
I was more thinking about "if a serf lives in a town for a year and has seven witnesses he is free" and similar laws.

But more importantly : Do you think we live in a class society today ? I wouldn't say so.

In the very first post in which i called medieval feudalist society not a class society, i called it stratified. I never claimed it was fair and equal or whatever. But class society implies far more for me. Especially class consciousness.
 
Last edited:

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
18,485
3,472
118
Do you think we live in a class society today ? I wouldn't say so.
Ah, who is "we"? Class is a factor everywhere, but it's a much bigger factor in some places than others. In the UK, you can still get political positions and pensions based on coming from a noble family. In other places money talks, but it's no so formalised and institutionalised.

As an aside, there were attempts to make rich landowners in Australia into nobility, but that was shouted (and laughed) down, leading to the phrase "bunyip aristocracy" which sounds more exciting than it is.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
10,795
5,722
118
Country
United Kingdom
I was more thinking about "if a serf lives in a town for a year and has seven witnesses he is free" and similar laws.
And the (brief, restricted) ability to earn limited freedom in this way was not even close to comparable to the freedom and opportunities others had from birth. That's the point: a few caveats/qualifications/mitigating elements does not buck an overwhelming trend.

But more importantly : Do you think we live in a class society today ? I wouldn't say so.
Uhrm, yes, categorically yes. No question.

In the very first post in which i called medieval feudalist society not a class society, i called it stratified. I never claimed it was fair and equal or whatever. But class society implies far more for me. Especially class consciousness.
What exactly does class imply for you, then? It doesn't seem to match what it means to most people.
 

Satinavian

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 30, 2016
1,643
621
118
What exactly does class imply for you, then? It doesn't seem to match what it means to most people.
Something far more dominant and rigid that is also more relevant to peoples identity.

If i were going out on the street and asked people what class they belong to, by far most wouldn't know. If i asked them, what classes exist, i would barely get matching answers.
And if i actually look into science and read some sociology papers about my society, they write about milieus or at best strata but completely avoid the term class.

That is not a class society for me.

----

So you assumed the whole time that i was argueing that medieval feudalism was less a class society and somehow more equal than our current modern one ? Haha, no, far from it. That was some serious misunderstanding.
 
Last edited:

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
10,795
5,722
118
Country
United Kingdom
Something far more dominant and rigid that is also more relevant to peoples identity.

If i were going out on the street and asked people what class they belong to, by far most wouldn't know. If i asked them, what classes exist, i would barely get matching answers.
The former there depends on where you are. In a lot of places that would be true, though in my experience most people have at the very least an inkling or feeling about their own class. Nevertheless, strong class consciousness is not required for class to exist.

The latter certainly isn't true in my experience. Most people here in the UK at least can identify the working class, middle class and upper class, as well as a generally-consistent set of features and definitions for each. Papers and popular media speak about them freely and frequently without requiring clarification. Even subsets like the upper-middle and lower-middle. Some nationally popular UK TV can't even really be understood without recognising class (like Keeping Up Appearances).

And if i actually look into science and read some sociology papers about my society, they write about milieus or at best strata but completely avoid the term class.
Sociologists and political philosophers very frequently talk about class, so this is entirely down to the ones you're reading.

So you assumed the whole time that i was argueing that medieval feudalism was less a class society and somehow more equal than our current modern one ? Haha, no, far from it. That was some serious misunderstanding.
Sort of. Class is more than simple inequity. But I will certainly say your conception of class is a long shot from the widely acknowledged version.
 
Last edited:

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
8,273
6,745
118
Country
United States
Just gonna throw this out there: it's entirely possible for a planned economy to be capitalistic and a market economy to be socialist.

Those are two separate axis. Markets existed long before capitalism did and will exist long after

For all it's faults, the Chinese government being willing to execute a billionaire for being a shit and bending/breaking the rules regarding money is inspirational.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Seanchaidh

Satinavian

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 30, 2016
1,643
621
118
How do you envision a capitalist planned economy ? The market is absolutely central to the Capitalism as a concept. If you get rid of it you can't call it Capitalism anymore. Capitalism is not just "rich peopla have power".

Now socielist market economy might exist for many definitions of socialism.
 

Ag3ma

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2023
2,350
2,008
118
How do you envision a capitalist planned economy ? The market is absolutely central to the Capitalism as a concept. If you get rid of it you can't call it Capitalism anymore. Capitalism is not just "rich peopla have power".
I guess the centrally planning authority could work by putting orders out for tender which private, profit-making companies then bid for.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrCalavera

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
8,273
6,745
118
Country
United States
How do you envision a capitalist planned economy ? The market is absolutely central to the Capitalism as a concept. If you get rid of it you can't call it Capitalism anymore. Capitalism is not just "rich peopla have power".
Cartels, mainly. Private owners knowingly not competing with each other
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrCalavera

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Feb 18, 2010
3,884
1,752
118
Country
United Kingdom
Primarily "How do i organize/plan/regulate my economy without letting the capitalist free market do all the heavy lifting."
I mean, that's remarkably easy. There are a bunch of ways of doing it, in fact.

Planned economies sucked.
Not really. Planned economies are frequently remarkably effective, which is why they tend to be adopted by nominally capitalist countries during major wars or disasters. Heck, I've stressed this point before, but today whole sectors of national economies are frequently centrally planned by one or two corporations who have an effective monopoly, and somehow it still works.

The "free market" isn't magic. It isn't less bureaucratic, it isn't more efficient. It requires the same amount of work to organize/plan/regulate as a centrally planned economy. The biggest differences between free market and centrally planned economies have far more to do with the prioritization given to different areas of the economy than with any real difference in the amount of "heavy lifting" required.

The world is full of failed or underperforming capitalist economies. The Soviet Union was a very bad example of a centrally planned economy, but if you think modern Russia is better because it has magical free market wizards fixing everything with financial sorcery then would you be interested in buying a square foot of land in Scotland?

Honestly, when i hear people talk favorably about enlightenment, it is usually in the way of "they had a lot of good ideas that were used successfully later or that we can still use now"
That's really the opposite of the point I am making.

By any meaningful attempt at an objective reading, all of those ideas failed. All of them. The entire basis of liberalism and democracy is a failure. The United States is a failed experiment. Every liberal country is a failed experiment. Every principle they claim to be founded on is a lie, or a broken promise, or a dream that never came true, or an idea that was never meaningfully delivered.

What do you do about that? Do you think it matters? Do you think we should all just give up, accept the whole idea was stupid and go back to the divine right of kings?

His analysis might somewhat fit to the western and middle European aristocracy of the 17th and 18th century. It would be completely wrong for e.g. 13th century Europe which is, while quite stratified, not a classist society at all. Feudalism is all about personal bonds, local communities/in groups and families.
That's not what Marx means by feudalism though.

Again, using terminology that you don't like doesn't mean the argument is wrong. Different words can mean different things within different disciplinary or field-specific contexts. Feudalism itself isn't a 13th century term. It's completely debatable whether feudalism ever actually existed in the way many historians describe it, or whether it's the retrospective imposition of an alien discourse onto to a set of arrangements that, at worst, were never systematized or consistent and, at best, differed so greatly between specific regional contexts as to be basically unrelated.

Academic writers are allowed to use terminology in non-standard ways provided the use is clearly explained and consistent. Marx' explanation of feudalism is consistent and clearly explained. It might not match up with what you think feudalism is, but that doesn't matter.

Rights and privileges are generally also a local, personal thing. It is very much not about classes.
Rights and privileges are always a local, personal thing. Class systems in the 19th century were not formal, legally enforceable systems. Class as a concept generally describes the broad distribution of individual rights and privileges in ways that are socially intelligible

Many European societies of the 13th century had sumptuary laws, meaning that people were legally required to present themselves in accordance with their status so that everyone knew at a glance where they stood in the social hierarchy. People absolutely knew where they stood in the social hierarchy relative to everyone else. What would you call that understanding if not class?
 
  • Like
Reactions: XsjadoBlaydette

Satinavian

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 30, 2016
1,643
621
118
Not really. Planned economies are frequently remarkably effective, which is why they tend to be adopted by nominally capitalist countries during major wars or disasters. Heck, I've stressed this point before, but today whole sectors of national economies are frequently centrally planned by one or two corporations who have an effective monopoly, and somehow it still works.
An effective monopoly is not a planned economy and would not necessarily call a war economy one either.
The "free market" isn't magic. It isn't less bureaucratic, it isn't more efficient. It requires the same amount of work to organize/plan/regulate as a centrally planned economy. The biggest differences between free market and centrally planned economies have far more to do with the prioritization given to different areas of the economy than with any real difference in the amount of "heavy lifting" required.
But the free market is more efficient. That has been proven again and again and again. Doing away with the relationship of supply and demand and price does tend to produce and prolong instances where those don't match. Not having utterly inefficient structures going bankrupt does mean they stay around.
Yes, theoretically whoever does the planning could catch all that, practically they can't and won't. Because they are only human with their own biases relying on second hand reports of dubious quality that are also often outdated.
The world is full of failed or underperforming capitalist economies. The Soviet Union was a very bad example of a centrally planned economy, but if you think modern Russia is better because it has magical free market wizards fixing everything with financial sorcery then would you be interested in buying a square foot of land in Scotland?
Nearly every single former eastern block country has a tremendous improved economy now that it ditched planned economy and went for the market instead. So has China. And the few exceptions are at least comparable.
That a free market is good for directing an economy was the only selling point Capitalism ever had and it still remains true.

What do you do about that? Do you think it matters? Do you think we should all just give up, accept the whole idea was stupid and go back to the divine right of kings?
I don't think it matters if those ideas brought the Utopia their proponents once believed they would. What does matter is how they have shown to work out in practice and whether they now, as we know more of them than then, look like an improvement or not.

Academic writers are allowed to use terminology in non-standard ways provided the use is clearly explained and consistent. Marx' explanation of feudalism is consistent and clearly explained. It might not match up with what you think feudalism is, but that doesn't matter.
It indeed doesn't really matter. It is pretty irrelevant for todays communism what 19th century Marx thought about the distant past.
 
Last edited:

XsjadoBlaydette

Piss-Drinking Nazi Wine-Mums
May 26, 2022
953
1,265
98
Country
Wales

Quinn Slobodian joins PoliticsJOE to discuss how capitalism threatens democracy, the way Dubai influences British economics, and the dangers of Canary Wharf.


Inequality is now entrenched in Britain from birth to work, and the government needs to take urgent action to help close the privilege gap, the Social Mobility Commission says today (Tuesday 30 April).

The commission’s sixth comprehensive State of the Nation report looking at early childhood, schools, universities, further education and work reveals that social mobility has been stagnant for the last 4 years.

Extensive analysis of new Office for National Statistics (ONS) data shows the wide gap in school attainment and income between the rich and the poor has barely shifted. Being born privileged still means you usually remain privileged.

The better off are nearly 80% more likely to end up in professional jobs than those from a working-class background.

Even when people from disadvantaged backgrounds land a professional job, they earn 17% less than their privileged colleagues.

Dame Martina Milburn, chair of the commission, says:

Our research suggests that being able to move regions is a key factor in being able to access professional jobs. Clearly moving out is too often necessary to move up. At a time when our country needs to be highly productive and able to carve out a new role in a shifting political and economic landscape, we must find a way to maximise the talent of all our citizens, especially those that start the furthest behind.
To help address this inequality, the commission calls on the government to:

  • extend eligibility and uptake of the 30 hour childcare offer to those only working 8 hours a week, as a first step to make it available to more low-income families
  • raise per pupil funding by a significant amount for those aged 16 to 19, and introduce a new pupil premium for disadvantaged students in that age group
  • become an accredited voluntary living wage employer so that government departments pay the voluntary living wage to civil servants and all contracted workers including cleaning and catering staff
Dame Martina says:

It is vital that young people have more choice to shape their own lives. This means not only ensuring that they get better qualifications, but making sure they have an informed choice to take up an apprenticeship rather than taking a degree, to find a job which is fulfilling and the choice to stay where they grew up rather than moving away.
Chapter findings
Early years (chapter 2)
The research shows that the most disadvantaged families are least likely to be aware of or benefit from the offer of 30 hours free childcare.

At present the offer is only given for 3 and 4 year olds when one parent works for 16 hours or more a week, but the middle classes benefit most.

The commission calls on the government to extend the offer to all those parents working 8 hours per week as a first step to giving it to more low income families.

The research also reveals that much of the childcare workforce is poorly paid and underskilled. A shocking 45% of child care workers are on benefits or tax credits.

Farrah Storr, commissioner and editor-in-chief of Elle magazine, says:

Extending the current 30 hours of free childcare to those who earn the equivalent of 8 hours rather than 16 hours per week will help those who need it most.
Schools, further education and universities (chapters 3, 4 and 5)
Disadvantaged pupils start school years behind their peers in terms of attainment, but they can catch up with good schooling.

However, the latest figures show a 14 percentage point gap at aged 11, rising to a 22.5 percentage point gap at 19.

Twice the number of disadvantaged 16 to 18 year olds are in further education than in school sixth forms, but funding has fallen by 12% since 2011 to 2012.

The commission calls for a significant increase in funding for all 16 to 19 year olds, and a special student premium for the disadvantaged.

Increasing numbers of students from disadvantaged families are entering university, but they are more likely to drop out before they graduate.

Five years after graduating, students who were eligible for free school meals were paid 11.5% less than their peers.

Alastair da Costa, commissioner and chair of Capital City Group, says:

Further education provides alternative life chances for all 16 plus age groups. Consistent budget cuts have made it more difficult to provide opportunities for everyone. But as 75% of disadvantaged 16 to 19 year olds choose vocational education, the cuts represent a class-based segregation of the school system.
Skills and living wage (chapter 6)
49% of the poorest adults have received no training since leaving school, compared to 20% of the richest.

Automation is also predicted to disproportionately impact low-skilled workers, whose jobs are most at risk of being automated.

People from working class backgrounds are more likely to be paid below the voluntary living wage than those from more advantaged backgrounds (27% versus 17%).

We recommend that government departments should become accredited voluntary living wage employers to include contracted staff.

Katherine Chapman, director of the Living Wage Foundation, says:

We know there is cross-party and widespread public support for the real (voluntary) living wage, but there are still cleaners, caterers and security staff, working in vital public sector jobs, who are struggling to get by. It’s time for our major public institutions to lead by example.
Other key findings
  • social mobility has remained virtually stagnant since 2014. Four years ago, 59% of those from professional backgrounds were in professional jobs, rising to 60% last year
  • in 2014 only 32% of those from working class backgrounds got professional jobs, rising marginally to 34% last year
  • those from working class backgrounds earn 24% less a year than those from professional backgrounds, even if they get a professional job they earn 17% less than more privileged peers
  • by age 6 there is a 14% gap in phonics attainment between children entitled to free school meals and those more advantaged
  • by age 7 the gap has widened to 18% in reading, 20% in writing and 18% in mathematics
  • only 16% of pupils on free school meals attain at least 2 A levels by age 19, compared to 39% of all other pupils
  • twice the number of disadvantaged 16 to 18 year olds are at further education colleges compared to sixth-forms, and this segregation within the education system has risen by 1.2% since 2013
  • student funding for 16 to 19 year olds has fallen 12% since 2011 to 2012, and is now 8% lower than for secondary schools (11 to 15 year olds), leading to cuts to the curriculum and student support services that harm disadvantaged students
  • graduates who were on free school meals earn 11.5% less than others 5 years after graduating
Key recommendations
  • the government should extend the eligibility of the 30 hour childcare offer by lowering the lower income limit of eligibility to those earning the equivalent of 8 hours per week, as a first step towards making it available to more parents
  • the government should consider whether pupil premium funding is effectively targeted at supporting disadvantaged students, and whether differential levels of funding might benefit those with long-term disadvantage
  • the government should increase per student spending in the 16 to 19 education budget by a significant amount within the upcoming spending review
  • the government should introduce a student premium for disadvantaged students aged 16 to 19 that models the pupil premium in schools, with a goal of targeting funding and focus on raising attainment for disadvantaged students
  • the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS), working closely with the Office for Students (OfS), universities and others, should develop a system which displays all financial support (bursaries, scholarships and ad-hoc funds) available to undergraduates alongside their eligibility criteria
  • universities should only make pre-qualification unconditional offers where it is clearly in the interests of the individual students to do so. In terms of widening access, universities should make more use of contextualised offers
  • government departments should lead the way by becoming accredited voluntary living wage employers.
Notes to editors
The Social Mobility Commission is an advisory, non-departmental public body established under the Life Chances Act 2010, as modified by the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016.

It has a duty to assess progress in improving social mobility in the UK and to promote social mobility in England.

The Commission board includes:

  • Dame Martina Milburn, Chair
  • Alastair da Costa, Chair of Capital City College Group
  • Farrah Storr, Editor-in-chief, Elle
  • Harvey Matthewson, Aviation Activity Officer, Aerobility
  • Jessica Oghenegweke, Project co-ordinator at the Diana Award
  • Jody Walker, Senior Vice President at TJX Europe (TK Maxx and Home Sense in the UK)
  • Liz Williams, Group Director of Digital Society at BT
  • Pippa Dunn, Founder of Broody, helping entrepreneurs and start ups
  • Saeed Atcha, Founder and Chief Executive Officer of Xplode magazine
  • Sam Friedman, Associate Professor in Sociology at London School of Economics
  • Sammy Wright, Vice Principal of Southmoor Academy, Sunderland
  • Sandra Wallace, Joint Managing Director Europe at DLA Piper
  • Steven Cooper, Chief Executive Officer C.Hoare & Co
The functions of the commission include:

  • monitoring progress on improving social mobility
  • providing published advice to ministers on matters relating to social mobility
  • undertaking social mobility advocacy

Russel Brand has really committed to being a shameless grifting kunt nowadays.
 

Ag3ma

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2023
2,350
2,008
118
Just a quick note here:

The Commission board includes:
  • Dame Martina Milburn, Chair
  • Alastair da Costa, Chair of Capital City College Group
  • Farrah Storr, Editor-in-chief, Elle
  • Harvey Matthewson, Aviation Activity Officer, Aerobility
  • Jessica Oghenegweke, Project co-ordinator at the Diana Award
  • Jody Walker, Senior Vice President at TJX Europe (TK Maxx and Home Sense in the UK)
  • Liz Williams, Group Director of Digital Society at BT
  • Pippa Dunn, Founder of Broody, helping entrepreneurs and start ups
  • Saeed Atcha, Founder and Chief Executive Officer of Xplode magazine
  • Sam Friedman, Associate Professor in Sociology at London School of Economics
  • Sammy Wright, Vice Principal of Southmoor Academy, Sunderland
  • Sandra Wallace, Joint Managing Director Europe at DLA Piper
  • Steven Cooper, Chief Executive Officer C.Hoare & Co
Just so we know who the real stakeholders in society are, I'm just going to point out that that is a commission board of (excluding the chair): one higher education, one secondary education, four charity, and six corporate.

I do not point this out to demean any of them as individuals. I am suggesting that if society looks mostly to corporations when it has questions, it's going to limit its diversity of potential answers.
 

XsjadoBlaydette

Piss-Drinking Nazi Wine-Mums
May 26, 2022
953
1,265
98
Country
Wales
Just a quick note here:



Just so we know who the real stakeholders in society are, I'm just going to point out that that is a commission board of (excluding the chair): one higher education, one secondary education, four charity, and six corporate.

I do not point this out to demean any of them as individuals. I am suggesting that if society looks mostly to corporations when it has questions, it's going to limit its diversity of potential answers.
Yeah, that was added cause of the unexpected denial of class existence in this thread surfacing: thought it being an official UK government website would at least provide some sense of legitimacy to those who need that sort of thing in regards to the issue. Is an attempt to meet halfway, basically.
 

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Feb 18, 2010
3,884
1,752
118
Country
United Kingdom
An effective monopoly is not a planned economy and would not necessarily call a war economy one either.
Why not?

What is it that defines a planned economy if not the level of centralized economic planning? Heck, one of the reasons that I describe the Soviet economy as a bad example of a planned economy is that it was, in many areas, far less centralized in terms of decision making than the most successful contemporary capitalist economies. Centralization is a good thing if your goal is efficiency. Centralization is, in fact, the primary benefit of capitalism over previous forms of economic organization. The concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a smaller number of corporations and the consequent reduction in competition is simply more efficient than everyone trying to run their own tiny farm or workshop as business.

From an efficiency standpoint, it is better if Amazon buys up the entire supply chain and administers the whole thing as part of a single bureaucratic structure than leaving it to the "free market". That is why they do it. Centralized planning and decision making works better than leaving it to a bunch of inefficient mini-bureaucracies which can't cooperate with each other or share resources because they're market competitors. We all know this on some level. It is fundamentally obvious, because it's built into the way capitalist economies develop and function.

Doing away with the relationship of supply and demand and price does tend to produce and prolong instances where those don't match.
Let's say I'm making a consumer product. Let's say it's a new car. At some point in the production process (likely very early) people will get together in a room and decide, based on the data available to them, what price they are going to sell that car at and how many units they believe they can sell at that price. From this they will figure out how much they expect to make in profit, because that's important to know if we expect to make money. The magical spirit of supply and demand doesn't suddenly manifest in that room and tell everyone exactly what those numbers should be, those people have to figure it out, and they are frequently wrong. Because the data they have access to is frequently wrong. The exact same amount of planning has to occur, and the exact same risks are involved.

Soviet economic planners were infamously bad at gathering and acting upon reliable statistical data in regards to things like consumer goods, mostly due to an ideological emphasis on heavy industry and ensuring the needs of state organizations like the military were given priority, but the problem of prices being unrelated to supply or demand is not exclusive to centrally planned economies and it is not even necessarily more of a problem in centrally planned economies than in free market ones.

Not having utterly inefficient structures going bankrupt does mean they stay around.
This assumes that the way to avoid to avoid going bankrupt is to be efficient. Frequently, this isn't true. In fact, it's untrue commonly enough that it has a name. Market failure.

Nearly every single former eastern block country has a tremendous improved economy now that it ditched planned economy and went for the market instead.
Even assuming this is true, which I think is incredibly debatable. That wasn't the example, and there are good reasons why it wasn't the example. There are very clear and obvious reasons why most most member republics of the USSR suffered during the Soviet period, because they were being deliberately exploited by the more wealthy republics (Russia and to a lesser extent Ukraine).

The point is that free markets are not magic. Stuff in a free market doesn't just happen and sort itself out magically with no human involvement. Everything still has to be planned and organized. Russia's "free market" economy is an excellent example of how the supposedly inherent problems of centrally planned economies can just as easily persist or even worsen in free market economies, because at the end of the day they still rely on the exact same degree of human involvement and the exact same capacity for human error and abuse.

I don't think it matters if those ideas brought the Utopia their proponents once believed they would.
Okay, but you see the double standard, right?
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
18,485
3,472
118
There are very clear and obvious reasons why most most member republics of the USSR suffered during the Soviet period, because they were being deliberately exploited by the more wealthy republics (Russia and to a lesser extent Ukraine).
One might also add, trade restrictions from places that had "free market economies", which may or may not be considered ironic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Terminal Blue

Ag3ma

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2023
2,350
2,008
118
Aaaand there we go

Maybe.

But the world is global, and so is media increasingly becoming. If Canada doesn't have its own homegrown behemoth, the only likely result is that its fractured sector gets snapped up by megamultinationals from the USA, China or Europe, etc.

It will perhaps be a funny world when there are basically about a dozen big media companies in the world, and all the major channels and outlets in any one country (aside maybe from the odd underfunded public sector provider) will be owned by a few of them.