European Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 1088

On May 06 2018 23:02 Archeon wrote:

The bold part is just a result of stability. As long as a system persists long enough the people that are powerful within the system will use that power to grow. It's not like communist systems or class systems were ever any different, the only thing that changes the economic structure within a system is technology, which potentially creates new markets and hence new winners.
We see that currently with information and communication technology, half of the top 10 richest people of the world own IT or communication companies. Which is why the "inherited vast amounts of wealth" story is only half true to begin with, especially in modern times.

On May 07 2018 01:06 Dan HH wrote:

If people don't give enough of a shit about wealth inequality for it to be an issue that determines election results now, are they going to care enough to support changing our economic model because of it? I don't think they will unless things get really horrible - massive unemployment, shortages, famine, that sort of area.

On May 06 2018 21:36 TheDwf wrote:
The problem is less the number of people than the way they produce and consume. This Earth could stand 15 billions of vegan Indian peasants but cannot stand even 3 billions of people with the way of life of the richest countries. Ecomalthusianism is off topic (especially as the increase in the overall human population will soon come to an end), developed/rich countries and their waste/over-consumption are the problem, not the few extra hundreds of millions of African people which will come to birth in the next decades before the demographic transition stops the curve.

On May 07 2018 01:40 Nyxisto wrote:


but that's not really a problem of capitalism or any other -ism. The seven billion people want to consume stuff no matter what system you're in, so the only really legitimate alternative is really a system that manages to supply that stuff in a way that is more amenable to our ecosystem. But we're not all going to live like Indian monks, that isn't happening. So if Malthusianism is off the table (which is good) then there has to be an answer how to keep growth going and how to keep the people happy. Anti-growth ideologies aren't ever going to be accepted anywhere by more than a fringe.

On May 05 2018 08:09 [DUF]MethodMan wrote:
For most of them it is the latter. I've spent my time in leftist thinktanks and subversive groups and maybe 20% of all people there would actually partake in serious political discussions. The rest is mostly brainwashed, much like neonazis, and just wants to smash things they think represent "capitalism" or "patriarchy" or whatever is the buzzword of the hour. Of course, when it goes to the streets, there will be all kinds of people involved for a variety of reasons. I guess it is just inevitable for a mob to turn violent if given enough public space and most importantly ideological backup by media, intellectuals or even politicians.



But they want exactly that, see G20 in Hamburg for reference. How is that a credible protest, when most of the stuff that goes broke is regular ass Joe's 5000€ car or small businesses?

Edit: You wouldn't believe the amount of blind hatred that runs within most of the organized people. I repeat, it is exactly the same with neonazis. They have their worldview set in stone and a clear enemy. The only good thing that can be said about their leftist counterparts is they rarely target people but mostly property, while with neonazis it is the way round. Still, the property they destroy usually belongs to ordinary people who worked all their life to obtain it. The vandals don't run shit to be frank, they stay in the background until police oversteps just slightly. They always need a justification for their crimes and it is really important to them to have the general populace sympathize with them, for nazis this doesn't apply really, they just don't give a fuck.

My point is, both are equally dumb, use the same structures to form their "protest" and in the end it is always gonna be regular people who suffer. Yet people tend to sympathize with antifa etc. way more because of the constant fearmongering against the right. It is what eventually turned me away from being politically active. Can't go right, the people would drive me insane within seconds. Can't go left, been there and people there aren't much better than on the right (again, the only real upside I see is the reluctance to harm actual people, which doesn't apply to police obviously lol). Center is dead and has been forever to a point where I don't even know if it ever really existed.

On May 07 2018 02:01 TheDwf wrote:

Of course it is, why do you think people are pushed into buying tons of useless stuff? Because profit. The consumerist society did not exist before, and is certainly not an anthropological invariant.

And 9 billions of human begins are not going to live like the US upper middle class either.

On May 07 2018 02:18 Nyxisto wrote:


Of course it is, people like stuff. You give them more stuff and they buy it. That was as true in the Soviet Union as it is in capitalist America or the steppes of Africa. The only reason it wasn't an invariant was because nobody had yet figured out how to make enough stuff. The weird idea that consumerism is somehow unique to capitalism was thoroughly disproven the first time a country tried to get rid of capitalism, it didn't make anybody less consumerist or more ecology friendly.

On May 07 2018 03:32 Dan HH wrote:

Yep, in socialist Romania there was a large black market of foreign smuggled goods, from chocolate to cigarettes to jeans to vinyls & magnetophon tapes. There was a sizeable subculture of people that grew up in the late 70s/early 80s listening to bootlegged English-language rock music. No regime could stop that guitar solo from Sultans of Swing from crossing its borders.

On May 07 2018 22:46 xM(Z wrote:
oh come on, when you say 'available to the general population' you never mean that the general population is allowed to look at the goods through a store window ... ;it implies that the general population has them, has the means to access and acquire them whenever they want(the limit being only the will of said general population).

On May 07 2018 23:51 Nebuchad wrote:
I understand consumerism to mean that people want to acquire stuff, not just a general wish to have stuff. I don't think these people under soviet rule are a great example for that conversation.

On May 07 2018 23:41 Acrofales wrote:

Do you even know what a black market is?

The first, legal layer was the so-called “red market”, i.e. the fully legal network of distribution managed by the state. In Poland, as a result of “battle for trade” of 1947, the state took over the totality of wholesale and retail trade in all basic food products. This trade fell within the authority of the Ministry of Internal Trade.
This first element was supported by the “pink market” – the network of second-hand shops created by the state. In socialist Poland, this was a network of legally operating retail outlets where citizens could sell their private property, e.g. clothes, valuables, furniture, works of art, or items brought from foreign trips. In the first period of their existence, both the seller and and the buyer had to provide their personal information, and the state set price caps for these goods. This type of outlets was supposed to complement the internal market with regard to luxury goods. On the other hand, central authorities wanted to control this sector, as they were aware that without control, these shops could quickly turn into places were stolen goods were handled. Also, by controlling sellers in second-hand shops, the authorities could track the commercial activities of those who could travel abroad. The third element of the legal market can be labeled the “white market”, and its role was to complement the red and the pink markets. The “white market” operated in urban and rural marketplaces and market squares, where citizens could sell both used products, and home-grown food. This part of the official market was completely free – prices of products, especially food, were regulated by supply and demand. In harbor and border towns, one could also buy the so-called colonial goods – spices, cocoa, coffee (even green coffee for roasting), chocolate from various parts of the world, chewing gum, citrus fruits, and even pineapples.

The second layer of the market in socialist Poland can be labeled the “gray market”. As J. Kochanowski points out, this was a combination of various small markets operating on the brink of legality. These included unregistered services provided by many professionals (builders, tailors, shoe makers or carpenters), but also flat rental, private tutoring, private medical services – all provided without official contracts and registration. There was also barter – cashless exchange of goods and services between national companies, which allowed them to accomplish the goals imposed by central production plans. Supply departments in companies had a certain amount of finished goods set aside for this purpose, exchanging them for necessary materials and parts [Kochanowski J. 2015: 13]. Beside the legal and semi-legal markets, in the socialist economy there were transactions conducted entirely outside of the system. Researchers of the state-controlled economy have identified at least two different elements in this layer as well. The first one was the “brown market” – the illegal redistribution of goods for which demand exceeded supply from the legal state-controlled “red market” (meat, clothes, white goods, construction materials etc.). The parties to the transactions did not try to make any additional profit, but instead satisfied their basic needs, based on reciprocity between people having access to different goods. The second one was the actual “black market”, where goods obtained illegally (by theft, smuggle, embezzlement, or appropriation) from the legal markets were sold for profit, and the money was often invested in commodities which were considered safe, e.g. gold, dollars, works of art or real estate [Kochanowski J.2015: 14]. So, the “black market” in the socialist economy was not actually entirely and completely black. However, it was surely the place where average Poles tried to find the goods which could not be found in the white or red markets, but for which they could pay with what they had – be it their own work, contacts, resourcefulness, or what they manufactured.

On May 07 2018 22:55 Silvanel wrote:
Dude...You are imagining things. Read again what i said.

On May 08 2018 01:12 xM(Z wrote:
you asked for it:you don't know what black market was or meant during communism. most of it was gray and could become black(you ended up in jail) because someone didn't like your face for ex.
that right there(/b), would make the whole Etsy a black market scheme.

Edit: to the argument - you can't cry out 'but consumerism...' when people look for meat on the 'black market'. wtf ...

ps: i'll take it that by those standards, you were rich.

The second one was the actual “black market”, where goods obtained illegally (by theft, smuggle, embezzlement, or appropriation) from the legal markets were sold for profit, and the money was often invested in commodities which were considered safe, e.g. gold, dollars, works of art or real estate [Kochanowski J.2015: 14]. So, the “black market” in the socialist economy was not actually entirely and completely black. However, it was surely the place where average Poles tried to find the goods which could not be found in the white or red markets, but for which they could pay with what they had – be it their own work, contacts, resourcefulness, or what they manufactured.

... Next to the card system there were also mechanisms (thefts from plants, warehouses, and shops) related to the exchange of those goods which were most urgently needed outside the system, namely meat, sugar, fats (butter, lard, oil) or sanitary goods. Additionally, there was also trade in alcohol (of more or less legal origin), which at this difficult time was a natural means of exchange. Even the introduction of martial law did not put a halt to black market. Famous “meat trips” reminded Poles of the period of occupation, and the army and Citizens’ Militia patrols, which were supposed to search cars for illegal press, were also busy catching meat traffickers [Kochanowski J. 2015: 114-116]

In the 1980s average citizens of East European countries faced many challenges, including daily difficulties created from ongoing and severe shortages of consumer goods. Buying such necessities as food, clothing, and hygiene products was a recurring obstacle to average consumers. Store shelves were frequently empty, and the state distributed ration cards, especially for meat products, in an effort to limit what each family could purchase. This 1982 photograph, taken in a butcher shop in Poland's capital city of Warsaw, clearly conveys the problem of acquiring basic necessities, such as meat. With the exception of some slabs of what looks like fatty bacon, the store shelves in this shop are empty. The two female shoppers purchase (possibly with ration cards) this meat because that was the only product available. Such hardships in maintaining adequate living standards were one of the numerous factors that led to the fall of state socialism throughout Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union.