Comments by "Alexander Sylchuk" (@sshko101) on "How Communism Nearly Starved Vietnam" video.

My grandma for some reason seemed to like collective farming in their village. She lived in a forest surrounded by swamps and the soviets dried out those swamps, creating tons of farmland. Those lands were extrimely fertile at first, but they became infertile (too acidic or what) very quickly and farming in that area is still considered a somewhat questionable decision. There is this ownership bias phenomenon, I wonder whether it's just people start to overinvest their own efforts into their own land or does the mere fact of you owning the land make you more attentive to all the risks and choices you make(or both)? Or does it simply aleviate moral hazard situation? I assume that for some people collectivist system might actually work, but not in a large scale and most definately not for everyone.
59
@julkiewitz I wonder if soviets had some version of Laffer curve to figure out the optimal ammount of force you have to apply to the workers in order to achieve maximum gains. BTW my grandma also loved polish rule. Maybe that´s just her pre-war childhood memories, but she told me numerous cool facts like you could get one zloty for one captured bark beetle. She was very cheerful and positive person, but according to her, every rule was good, it´s just those who didn´t want to work were seeking a reason not to work.
10
There's actually double "adverse selection" going on in this Marx's maxim. That was the main problem with orwellian horse. Poor animal has killed himself with overwork just because he was hard working and fair. That horse character actually shows the point that even with high morality and self sacrifition to the limits of your ability you might still end up being unfair to yourself in the worst dramatic fashion.
9
@thethaovatoquoc312 There's actually one major factor being thrown away from the discussion on collectivism. I think that human relationships is a key factor for anything to work. Inside a family or a close friends group most of interactions goes smoothly without any formal or financial regulation. On the other side unjust economical gain between family members or friends usually ruins those relationships completely. I think that this "Dunbar's number" concept is somewhat more important than capitalism vs collectivism type of debate. I can only make small addition to that concept that the closer the relationship is with someone the easier it is for you to cooperate with that person. I think that this phenomenon is being overlooked significantly even in modern capitalist societies. Especially today with omnipresent social media, where the vast majority of influencers receive monetary gain from unilateral "friendly" relationship with the viewer or follower.
8
@Patangy No she was always happy about her life, the only really dark part of it was the WW2. She told me plenty of the dark episodes from that war: germans with flamethrowers, burnt women, dying from starvation, saving her little sister's life, she even showed me all the places where germans were executing people (shooting them or hanging). After the war all her stories were good again, like when she flew on a plane to cultivate the untouched lands in the Kazakhstan.
7
@leezhieng True but that land is probably still too acidic to grow anything on it with significant yeilds and it might be not economically justifiable to improve it´s characteristics. The region as a whole have some of the least fertile lands in our country. I actually inherited a bit of that land (if I will make the papers for it before 2025) and it is not clear to me whether it is even worth doing something with it for me, since I don't even have the right education. The local community would not be happy to give land to someone who is not a farmer and even if they do so still it would be some long abandoned plot overgrown with some swampy trees.
3
@mishap00 When you exceed the quota you usually get rewarded with some sort of premium (usually significant ammount of money, but sometimes you get just some useless paper). My grandpa didn't have to go for all these different jobs, he just wanted to. He actually accrued quite a significant ammount of money during his (quite short for modern standart) life. He collected enough to buy a nice big apartment, nice car, he had enough money to build a new house for his daughter. Even my dad, just by working hard, has earned enough to buy an apartment, he had a car (which was a luxury), he bought his first motorcycle when he was 16 (btw it was absoulutely not possible to me in my teens, even buying the same a lot older soviet model old bike and I worked at that age). Another thing was that all that money dissapeared after the collapse of soviet union (it was all basically stolen by oligarchs). My point is not to glorify soviet union but to show that criticism was often aimed badly. Motivation wasn't a problem, more important was inability to match your personal values.
3
@KirillMavreshko Soviet union have lost 20 million people during WW2, 10M of them were from Ukraine, about 7.6 million of them were ethnic ukrainians, 6 millions of them were ukrainian men serving in the soviet army - that's from official soviet statistics. All the equipment for heavy industry was predominantly bought from the US on money received from food exports. Building heavy industry on famine is a "very good" strategy. At least 4 million people died from famine in Ukraine and Kuban region (predominantly populated by ukrainans at the time) during 1932-1933. Building heavy industry on genocide money is a good lesson to learn. If you only know the soviet propaganda version of history then you should understand that the majority if not all the enterprises were relocated to SIberia or just closer to Ural montains (you can just read a history of any enterprise or city in russian Siberia). It wasnt just russians, industry wasn't under bombardment, saving lives was never an objective for SU, most deaths vere unnecessary, it wasn't because of communism it was inspite of communism. In many regards soviet army was better equipped than the german one in the beginning of the war and in the most occasions it was only soviet system to blame in numerous mishaps and losses. I don't know, it's said that there's no point in trying to prove something to you guys, but still, I feel like you should at least know part of your history since you didn't get your last name from nowhere. I agree with you on the point that any blind belief in any economic ideology is harmful.
2
@mishap00 That's a somewhat caricature version of human nature. Only some people are that selfish, only small margin of a population can be solely motivated by personal gain. If you goof off all day you'll be punished, you'll loose your social credit. In the case of village the head of collective farm will add necessary notes to your personal file and you'll be denied in any possible future promotions, raises and so on. You'll be even denied to leave your village (villagers couldn't leave their place of residence without the work referral from their collective farm). The only legit reason for people to leave their place of residence was to go for a work somewhere else. If you aren't a good worker according to your personal dossier then you aren't going to go anywhere at all, and you won't be able to find better job or any sort of education. Having a good image was a number one priority in soviet union. For example one my grandfather regularly worked as a fireman in army quarters in Brest. He regularly worked in the airport (or airbase) in Minsk. He worked for quite some time as a construction worker in Moscow. One time he worked in a logging company, basically he was logging huge trees on the banks of Pechora river in Siberia. He also worked in Syktyvkar (close to Pechora river) at different odd jobs. He was just a regular worker in their collective farm but he had a good record and he was able to go to different seasonal jobs and earn some good money, and he wasn't a fan of soviet union. My grandma also was a worker at a collective farm but she regularly took some odd jobs at other farms across Ukraine. She even flew once on a plain to work in Kazakhstan, she wasn't a big fan of that country but she didn't hate it. My other grandpa was sent to labour camp during stalin's rule, just because of his religious belief. After the death of stalin he was rehabilitated but he got his record of the enemy of the state. There was no future for him, he could only work in the lowest paying job, he had a job, basically ironing uniforms at some facility (not sure if it was a factory). Even my dad knew it from his school years that higher education for him is forbidden (teachers told him this quite regularly), he could only become some odd worker, like a cobbler or a bus driver. He was a child of an enemy of the state. Some people with a such status tried to pursue better career, but it always failed in a sense that sooner or later KGB would inform them that they either quit their career aspirations or they continue to work for KGB at their field. My mom, when she became a school director had to join the communist party, but she didn't want to and she never did. She just left principal office and became a regular teacher. Personal record was very important and this approach of goofing off was only a thing among actual criminals, some of them didn't work even in prisons just because their criminal status didn't allow to work. On the other hand work (or labour) is the highest form value in marxism, that was the most important thing in that society and not working was illegal.
2
@koolaidblack7697 "except in situations where the farmer's work directly benefits them and their community..." - that's the part I agree on, but not on the second one: "...and no one else". I think that the key thing is natural communal (or familial) structure of certain people group. From my general knowledge of neuroscience of social groups I think that there has to be slight genetic (and definately cultural) variation on how fair social structure has to function from the pespective of certan individual and his ethnic group. My assumption is that if collectivisation doesn't mess around with general established rules for a given group - it'll be ok. In the case of my background, I'd say that it was familial obligation to help family members to work on their plots of land. Since the dawn of times you had to work on a local landlords' land for some salary (or benefits, certain rights) and you also had time to work on your own small plot of land (i.e. subsistence farming). The thing was, and still is for regular people, that whole family helps you with your plot of land, only if your relationships are good. If you don't help, or you have some conflict within your family - you won't get help, you're basically on your own. The other factor is when you are just someone's grandson and brothers and sisters of your grandparents, depending on their relations with your granparent, can supply you with unlimited ammount of produce for consumption. Majority of modern israelites actually come from Ukraine, so in terms of culture there's definately many borrowed ideas from each other. More than a century ago 12% of our population was jewish and the majority of them lived in villages:10% village population, 2% lived in cities (which was slightly more that 50% of our urban population). It is stereotyped that jewish population didn't engage in all this "saturated market" types of endevours, like farming, but rather were engaged in different types of craftsmenship and trades. When you take the statistics you realize that all 10% of village population couldn't be solely envolved in crafts and trade, majority had to do the "regular" stuff. My assumption is that "Israel's collective farms", that you've mentioned, is our common historic tradition, maybe with just slight variation.
2
 @HungVu-ec3jk It might appear to some as natural order. It's wrong though to extrapolate some feature of our human nature over the entire social order in a country.
2
@СергейГражданский От локомотивов до станков, можете проверить. Просто не было ни технологий ни капитала в нужных объемах. Поэтому все коммунистические режимы делали голод для населения. Голод в Украине думаю был частично отместкой за недовыполнения плана во время голода на Поволжье. По расчетам импорт зерна/риса может и позволял накопление нужного капитала, но в реальности план никогда не выполнялся, часто благодаря практикам самого режима.
1
@KirillMavreshko Нас ссср завоевал в 1939-м году. Все очень хорошо помнят депортации в Сибирь, раскулачивание, и то как людей садили в лагеря по надуманным причинам. Это не из учебников а с воспоминания родственников. Может западная критика не всегда по сути, а часто в эмоциональном поле, но не всем можно быстро объяснить "диктатуру пролетариата" либо иной другой бред. Чего про вас лгать: угрожали, угрожали, вторглись, миллион военных преступлений, а для своего населения генерируете вечный бред как за времён союза. И потом "все вокруг лгут, мы одни правы", опять вы "в домике".
1
@KirillMavreshko Это я про современную россию писал про вторжение и вы тоже несёте ответственность за это. В 39-ом союз виновен за начало второй мировой. Мне вот интересно, как у вас в голове укладывается (если вы не пропагандист конечно), вы решили что у всех вокруг ненависть и поэтому нужно завоевать соседнее государство самыми жестокими методами? Советский союз делал преступления исходя из своей идеологии и исполнителей нельзя привязывать за национальной составляющей, они руководились политическими мотивами, а не национальными. Этнические конфликты в первую очередь возникали на почве борьбы за национальную независимость. Раньше я тоже аргументировал про начало 20-го века и про то что все всех убивали, но я это использовал с целью убедить собеседников в том, что националистические идеологии так же имеют негативную сторону, особенно когда переходят в крайнюю форму. Что не может быть плохой правая или левая идеология, плохи крайности. США строились на левых идеях, современная Франция да и вся Европа довольно левая. Проблема СССР в том, что это страна была построена на радикально левой идее, которая так и не обрела "человеческого лица". Современная россия возродила старую советскую идеологию, только теперь сделав её националистической. Не смотря на ваши корни (если это конечно не легенда), вы являетесь частью российской политической нации и поэтому должны отвечать за действия своего государства, потому что это не определённая маленькая организация либо партия - это большинство вашего общества и ваша власть такая, тем боле вы продолжаете советскую политическую традицию. Ваш миф про ненависть несостоятелен, да, может сегодня весь мир и ненавидит русских, но только из-за действий вашего государства и из-за того что вашим гражданам всё равно. Вы знаете про то что ваша страна вторглась в Украину как раз с целью заработать, получить стратегический ресурс и для этого внутри своей страны создала миф про нацистов и ненависть? Наверно я из-за ненависти выучил этот язык, он по большому счету мне совсем не нужен.
1
@KirillMavreshko Вся проблема в ценности. У Маркса она в работе (его теория довольно неплоха для промышленности). Но какая работа ценная определяется сверху вниз (политически). Весь мир (не только америка) борется с ленинизмом. Когда ленин переопределил "диктатуру пролетариата" как бесконечную жестокость к капиталистам (у Маркса акцент был на контроле средств производства всего лишь предполагая насилие для достижение цели), он сделал контроль (чаще всего через насилие) главной ценностью. Теорию Маркса практически невозможно реализовать без нужного контроля. Проблема ленинизма в том, что государство больше занималось контролем населения чем политическим определением ценности. Получался замкнутый круг: власть выбирает что есть ценно для общества, и если ваши личные ценности расходятся с установленными либо вы хотите немного другую власть - значит вы враг народа (даже если вы просто хотите других представителей коммунистической партии). То есть ценность перешла с простого "работа", но не просто работа во имя работы, а та что полезна обществу (у Маркса) в "то что мы контролируем есть ценность" потому что власть определяет, что нужно обществу и власть определила всех кто хочет изменить эту власть врагами народа. В таком обществе ячейка общества - это класс и вы как человек ценны ровно настолько, насколько вы соответствуете тому что определяет власть правильным для представителей рабочего класса. Рецепты у Маркса не верны и не рабочие, но у ленина они уже рабочие, так же неверны, но ещё и очень опасны для всего человечества. Знаете я бы рад критиковать неолиберальную "рыночною ценность", почему это похожая ошибка к марксизму-ленинизму, но рынок хотя бы имеет понятные законы распределения рисков. Так же не в восторге от "империи свободы" Томаса Джефферсона, но пока есть проблема намного опаснее. Национализм используют в политических целях для борьбы с интернациональным ленинизмом, поэтому россия выбрала полное очернение этих течений так же как и демократии выбрали очернение коммунизма для защиты от тоталитаризма. Для меня лично было важно разобраться почему человека за религиозные убеждения нужно заключать в Сибири в трудовом лагере. А ещё больше то, почему священника КГБ должно ликвидировать. Ответ очень простой, такой человек ценит не то что определило государство и есть угрозой для такого государства. К стати, моя бабушка рассказывала как летала на самолете в Казахстан осваивать целину, ей было интересно, много хороших воспоминаний. Думаю популярная критика ссср не совсем верна, но она больше построена для эмоционального отторжения так как большинству людей сложно оперировать более глубокими концепциями. Ладно удачи вам, в Украине всё хорошо и будет только лучше.
1
My point was not about communist dictatorship and their land reforms (which are both bad), but more about natural reasons why some people feel ok in collectivist setting even under communist regime. Some societies are naturally more collectivist in their mentality (ukrainians included) than the others (russians are a lot more individualistic, for example). Another point was about social structure and economic models, and effects of the latter on the natural social order established through generations in a certain society. When we first got independent (in 1917) we established socialist republic. Socialist ideas were predominant among both parts of our society: in russian empire and Austria-Hungary aswell. The same was the case in Poland. In 1918 landowners and "big business" decided that they don't like the nacionalization and abolishment of private property and so they gathered and promoted a new leader. With the help of germans they succeded a coup. New ruler was more republican and conservative (slightly monarchist). One of the main compromise was establishment of a Land Bank with long loans for peasants (like 65 years long) to buy land from big landowners. By 1922 our country was divided between communist russia, Poland, Czechoslovakia and Romania, and that land reform was never completed unfortunately. Russian puppet state of Ukraine had a lot less productive agriculture than any other occupying state. On the other hand communist Ukraine had a lot more productive agriculture, and economy in general, than russia (almost twice as good actually). After 1945 we also performed a lot better than communist/socialist Poland, Romania, Hungary and Czechoslovakia. Not sure about the mainland China agricultural reforms (I think they're more like late soviet ones), but the thing is that we are still major supplier of grain and corn to that country. I think that Taiwan has proper reforms, while mainland was just bloated with foreign investments prematurely. @johnnotrealname8168
1