Capitalism Is the Antidote to 'Black-Pilled' Internet Pessimists
Michael Malice's new book The White Pill sees a positive future for the country, in contrast with internet culture.

The movie The Matrix gave us the "red pill" and the "blue pill." The red wakes you up to reality; the blue keeps you indoctrinated.
Internet culture then invented a black pill. Those who take it think the world is doomed.
So, podcaster Michael Malice wrote the book The White Pill, calling it a "symbol of hope."
"Young people in recent years," he tells me, "were discouraged about the future of this country. But people in a far worse position than us won a far greater victory in our lifetime, and no one talks about it."
He refers to the fall of the Soviet Union. We talk about that in my new video.
Malice was born in Russia. He's researched how even ruthless tyrannies can be toppled.
I say to Malice, "What I find unbelievable about the Berlin Wall being torn down is that I thought, 'Finally, people wised up to the evil of central planning and socialism.' Yet [today] academically smart college students want socialism!"
"You go to school," Malice quips, "and then leave four years later as a swamp walrus who can't have a conversation with their parents."
He calls universities "the real villains."
Universities do "black-pill" students about capitalism. Professors emphasize its problems and downplay its many benefits. A Pew study found that the more education Americans have, the more they prefer socialism.
"One thing that drives me crazy," says Malice, "is when people say, 'communism works in theory.'… Everything works in theory. Reality is how you determine how something works or not!"
I once thought we'd learn about reality from media. But reporters like central planning. It's easy to cover. We spend time with politicians and often interview them about their plans.
"Intellectuals" tend to grab media jobs, and for some reason, intellectuals want to believe that big government is good for people. Intellectuals convinced themselves that the Soviet Union must be a success, a happy commune. New York Times star reporter Walter Duranty covered up mass famine there.
"Why would he do that?" I ask Malice. "I assume he doesn't want people to starve."
"He doesn't care," replies Malice. "When you're the biggest guy in the most interesting country on earth, that's status. When that's the most important thing to you, everything else can fall by the wayside."
Soviet officials praised The New York Times. Duranty won a Pulitzer. Neither the Times nor the Pulitzer leftists ever apologized.
Malice says Americans are smarter today.
"There is an enormous increase of contempt and skepticism towards corporate journalism."
I point out that some people see the election of Donald Trump as the antidote to media and big-government tyranny.
"What I'm excited about," he responds, "is someone like Elon [Musk]….I trust his judgment far more than I trust Trump's."
"You think he can shrink the state?"
"No," he says, "but I'm hopeful that things will move in a better direction….I don't think there's any sense in Washington or in the population that [shrinking the state] is desirable. People want government to be smaller, except for this program and that one."
Still, the author of The White Pill is hopeful, in a weird way.
"Maybe Trump, who's very petty, will be vindictive and will close down bases in the home states of politicians he doesn't like!"
I thought Malice was a libertarian, but he says no, he's an anarchist.
We small-l libertarians want limited government, one that handles defense, courts and problems like pollution.
Malice says we're mistaken, because government doesn't do anything well. Anarchists believe "voluntary exchanges between individuals" would do a better job.
Would that mean private armies? Private lawsuits fighting pollution? I don't see how those would work. So, Malice and I argue about that.
In a few weeks, I'll air our debate.
Every Tuesday at JohnStossel.com, Stossel posts a new video about the battle between government and freedom. He is the author of "Give Me a Break: How I Exposed Hucksters, Cheats, and Scam Artists and Became the Scourge of the Liberal Media."
COPYRIGHT 2024 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Of course the pill that saves everyone is White.
So…… white is right?
Of course the pill that saves everyone (from boredom; WHO can EVER be bored when NO ONE can ever know twat outrageous, fart-out, fart-right shit He will say next?) is ORANGE, damn-shit!!!
If the end of the Soviet Union represents hope, the white pill
Then Lenin and his Jewish Bolsheviks who created the Soviet Union represent hopelessness, the black pill.
The same people whose leader has international warrants for his arrest are committing a holocaust in Gaza and are coercing the west to be complicit.
Jews clearly represent the black pill.
The black pill is Adolf-adoration and Hitler-Shitler-humping! Adolf-adoration and Hitler-humping such ass twat PervFected YOU seems to be indulging in, on a regular basis, Herr Miserable Misek!
Hahaha
Go away, idiot. No one is buying your bullshit.
You’re not accepting the truth demonstrated by correctly applied logic that you can’t refute.
You do you.
I’m pleased with the optics.
Your "logic":
Some Jews supposedly did some bad things.
Therefore Jews in general are the problem.
That's not how you do correctly applied logic. Sorry.
Are you talking about Israel committing a holocaust?
The stolen apartheid “ home of the Jews”?
Here’s your and any Jew lurking here chance to demonstrate that you aren’t part of the problem.
Speak up fuckwit!
You advocacy of Israel demonstrates that you are.
apartheid
You are an ignoramus, at best.
Lol Fuck off. You sound like those crackpot black nationalists. "we wuz kings until jooz."
Tally
Not the problem = 0
I'm not advocating anything. Just pointing out your idiocy.
Refuted. See? Turns out it’s pretty easy to refute your bigoted, crackpot ravings.
And seriously, you belong at Stormfront, not here. Don’t know why you bother to come here in the first place. You’re a Nazi pariah.
Refuted? You don’t know the meaning of the word.
Seriously, you must be confusing me with someone who cares what you think.
Yet you come back for more and more. You crave our approval and acceptance. Desperately so. Yet you will never get it.
Even the drunk, the pedophile, and the morbidly obese pedophile find you to be disgusting, and they’re anti Israel too. That should tell you something
Here, let us examine this.
Then Lenin and his Jewish Bolsheviks who created the Soviet Union represent hopelessness, the black pill.
Lenin and his bolsheviks were, indeed a black pill.
Were they all Jewish? No.
Did only the Jewish ones work to spread the lies of collectivism? No.
Did the lies of collectivism have some implicitly Jewish aim? No.
The same people whose leader has international warrants for his arrest are committing a holocaust in Gaza and are coercing the west to be complicit.
The SAME people? Same people as what? Lenin and his bolsheviks?
How does this statement attach to the previous? Are you suggesting that Lenin and the bolsheviks are somehow involved in what is happening in the Middle East between Jews and Muslims?
How does this 'complicitness' you see attach to the lies of collectivism being a black pill?
And where does Jewishness come in at all?
Your cogitation is defective.
The leaders of the Russian revolution creating the Soviet Union, concentration camp gulags and the KGB we’re Jewish.
The black pill of hopelessness in their Soviet Union.
The Jewish international criminal Netanyahu with warrants for his arrest is leading Israel, the self proclaimed “home of the Jews” to committing a holocaust in Gaza.
The black pill of hopelessness in Gaza.
One thing they have in common is that they’re Jews leading people to hopelessness.
The black pill.
Jews don’t have to be the only lying wastes of skin to be lying wastes of skin.
I’m reminded of a recent post here by an anonymous coward supporter of Israel who scoffed at the mountains of evidence of conspiracy between Zionists, Israel and western governments worldwide.
The poorly constructed logic was that if there actually was a cabal and I wasn’t a part of it, the mossad would have surely killed me by now.
On December 11 Candice Owens interviewed Phil Tourney a surviving sailor and current president of the USS Liberty veterans organization. Earning Ms Owens the coveted antisemite of the year award.
In the video he demonstrates irrefutable evidence that the US president knew about the attack by Israel in advance and that the entire event was a false flag planned to use the sinking of the USS Liberty to bring the US into WW3 on the side of Israel.
The US is occupied by Israel. The black pill.
If you consider yourself a US PATRIOT, putting America first, you need to see this interview and WAKE UP!
https://www.lewrockwell.com/political-theatre/candace-owens-interviews-uss-liberty-survivor-phil-tourney/
Refuted.
And on behalf of the other 99% of the commentariat, refuted.
He refers to the fall of the Soviet Union. We talk about that in my new video. Malice was born in Russia. He's researched how even ruthless tyrannies can be toppled.
But they don't always get replaced by governments that value liberty. Look to the former Soviet republics that gained independence from Moscow along with the former Warsaw Pact nations. The ones that sought and found partners with the West have generally done fairly well. At least, definitely in comparison to Soviet dominance, by large margins. The ones that didn't get far enough out from under Russia's thumb when they had the chance in the 90's? Not so much.
I hear a lot from critics of our support for Ukraine talk like it was reasonable, even correct, for Putin to be angry that NATO and the EU encroached on Russia's sphere of influence with nearly all of those countries. And that this encroachment somehow mitigates or even justifies Russia's seizing of Crimea in 2014 and the invasion of Ukraine nearly three years ago (and of Georgia in 2008).
That is all just so much bullshit. A sovereign nation, by definition, owes no permanent allegiance to any other nation. Russia only has an inherent right to manage its own alliances and partnerships. Its legitimate "sphere of influence" only includes nations that want to be influenced.* If Russia doesn't like how a nation on its border has tried to cozy up to the West, then offer them a better deal (and not the kind that they can't refuse).
Where the West went wrong, as the collapse of the Soviet Union was happening and after it happened, was in not working harder to include Russia in integrating with the rest of Europe. Especially politically and diplomatically. The economic integration that Russia got from the West was mostly through buying Russian energy supplies. All that ended up doing was strengthening the future authoritarian regime of Putin by creating oligarchs that became rich and powerful at the expense of true liberty and prosperity for the Russian people.
This is the result when government policy is only directed at total wealth creation, without caring about how that wealth is distributed and how competitive markets are. The men that get their hands on the largest stacks first will dominate the table and do everything they can to keep others out of the game.
*(The same is true of every nation, and we would do well to remember all of the times and ways that the U.S. has not upheld that principle. We should also work to decrease how much our government violates it in the present.)
JasonT20, agreed, good post!
I'm too lazy to look up links about this, but I have read that post-USSR-collapse, the fat cats over there forbade western companies from buying being-sold-off USSR factories, etc. That would have required ENTIRELY too much humility on the part of USSR politicians and other fat cats! It would almost definitely have worked out better that way, for common people in the USSR. Such a sell-off would almost definitely have hurt the Pride and Precious Baby Patriotic Feelings of the common people in the USSR ass well, I suspect. Pride sucks! Humility works!
So then we had ONLY USSR fat-cats being allowed to buy (at fire-sale prices) USSR assets! And look at what this shit got them, and us!!!
I hear a lot from critics of our support for Ukraine talk like it was reasonable, even correct, for Putin to be angry that NATO and the EU encroached on Russia's sphere of influence with nearly all of those countries. And that this encroachment somehow mitigates or even justifies Russia's seizing of Crimea in 2014 and the invasion of Ukraine nearly three years ago (and of Georgia in 2008).
In fact you hear this from no one. What you hear is that this isn't worth getting into a war over and that's infinitely more true of a nuclear power.
That's Jeffy's trick too. Redefine the other sides argument until it becomes something it's not, and then argue against that.
Because he’s an inveterate liar. I don’t see how anyone could tolerate his excruciating presence for more than five minutes.
“ it was reasonable, even correct, for Putin to be angry”
Imagine Russia was about to enter a defense pact with Mexico. We’d be right to be angry.
We should have anticipated Putin’s paranoia and downplayed NATO for Ukraine. Why poke them? It was irresponsible, but not surprising from SloJo.
I agree with what Marshall says. You can think that Russia is doing bad things and still not want to be involved. Also, by the same argument you make initially, the results of our intervention and support of Ukraine could well result in an even worse situation than would have occurred had we stayed neutral.
I do think you are right about this though:
Where the West went wrong, as the collapse of the Soviet Union was happening and after it happened, was in not working harder to include Russia in integrating with the rest of Europe.
There is no good reason why relations in Russia shouldn't have been better since the fall of the USSR. I think a lot of that can be blamed on US foreign policy and intelligence community people.
Simply false. The west worked very hard to integrate Russia into the rest of Europe. Trade was increasing to the point of a boom, enriching the Russians and benefitting Europe. Then, all of a sudden, the storied Russian xenophobia and paranoia kicked in in the form of an ex-secret policeman named Putin, whose delusions of empire upset the entire apple cart. Apparently, the dictum that a leopard cannot change its spots is true. Only the Russian people can change things now if they managed to learn anything from the last three decades.
Well, I can't say I know. Or that I completely believe your version.
What I am sure of is that we shouldn't be involved in Ukraine to the extent we are. Unless we're going to actually start a war with Russia, as far as I can see all we are accomplishing is more and more complete destruction of Ukraine at huge expense to ourselves.
The Biden administration has said that the purpose of our involvement is to drain Russia. Not to achieve any kind of end. Which is sick if you ask me.
Well that's a delusional fantasy from top to bottom. Not one of those things you described actually happened. What happened is a bunch of multinationals went in hooked up with the men who became oligarchs and started plundering Russia's natural resources for huge dough, without any reimbursement. And then the CIA who is losing its reason for living, decided that Russia should be broken up into even smaller pieces and went along doing just that.
Malice does sound like an interesting fellow to have a beer or two with.
John, I applaud your calling out the approved narrative, but you don't have to be an anarchist to believe government doesn't do anything well. Just because the government doesn't do military well doesn't mean there's no room at all for government to do military. Even the Founders and the Framers thought there was a limited national role for government in national defense. At the time of the Framing, the vast majority of people were members of a local militia, well-regulated or not. State Governors could call out the militia in response to major emergencies - and if your local militia didn't agree that it was a major emergency, they might not respond. A national call-up of local militias could only happen or be successful in case of a declared war (back when Congress still accepted the responsibility) and that's what we need now. Because the technology of war and national defense has evolved, we now need a core "standing" military force but with the mass of the citizenry trained, armed and ready to respond in case we are attacked militarily. That's small "L" libertarian.
I highly recommend “Cooperation and Coercion” by the hosts of the “Words and Numbers” podcast (which I also recommend). Their latest episode is about tariffs.
They make a very compelling case that while most things in our lives are best solved with cooperation, there are some times when coercion is necessary. That would be the limited role for government.
Have you ever thought of reading a book instead of just listening to opinions of others?
I’m recommending a book written by two libertarian professors, and you’re telling me to read a book? Fuck you’re retarded.
Since ALL "books" are the "opinions of others" your comment is especially and unusually ridiculous. Some opinions are better documented with verifiable facts and framed with logical integrity, whether in book form or spoken; and some are just unsupported frothing at the mouth (or keyboard.) Guess which one of these I think your opinions represent.
How is reading opinions any different from hearing them? (Provided the speakers/authors are knowledgeable)
Internet culture then invented a black pill. Those who take it think the world is doomed.
It's not internet culture, it's leftist culture. The Population Bomb wasn't on the internet but it's an early example of the left's need for everything to be apocalyptic. Only the end of the world justifies the type of control they want to exert, so they pretend every problem is the end of the world. If enough people with credentials say it the naive herd thinkers will believe it.
Jesus, not everything is partisan.
sarc's new theory: politics isn't political, at least when that's the best he has to attack those he hates.
You’re claiming all doomsayers are partisans who you hate, and then you’re claiming I’m the hater for saying you’re wrong?
You trying to be a Jesse and accusing me of doing what you’re doing while doing it?
The guy who has started an argument every business day for most of two decades now wants to pose as the calm and collected elder statesman of etiquette.
I think we can close down Reason, we've seen everything.
I see he edited his comment.
You’re claiming all doomsayers are partisans who you hate,
Wrong on both counts. Doomsaying is a common tactic on the left but that does not mean all doomsayers are leftist. I also don't hate them, I oppose them because they are wrong. Identifying their process so everyone can recognize it is why I post. Does anyone else wonder why the Jeffsarcs oppose people recognizing how left wing propaganda works? Hmm, whatever could their reasoning be?
Maybe if you weren't so invested in attacking people you hate you could better understand what they're saying.
But it's you so we'll never find out.
Whatever dude. You blame everything in the world you hate on this homogeneous left, but you don’t hate them. You just hate everything they do, everything they say, everything they’ve done, anyone who agrees with them, anyone who represents them, every organization they control, every piece of legislation they’ve ever written, and so on and so forth. But you don’t hate the left.
Okie dokie.
I oppose anyone whose plans will ruin America and all their efforts to do so.
It's a little weird sarc thinks you should oppose only the people but not their acts, statements, institutions or allies as if these are independent entities. Or maybe he has internalized the need to protect the left and he wants the list as impressive as possible. Certainly he doesn't apply this framework to himself, as we know sarc only has standards for those he hates, never for himself or his allies.
Another incongruous theme though is how concerned he is about people hating the left. Certainly he's never defended the right in the same way so why the concern about the left when he claims not to be one. It's like there's a tell in there.
"I oppose anyone whose plans will ruin America and all their efforts to do so."
Those who plan to pollute America's Sacred Blood, Soil, and Precious Bodily Fluids? Or ALL of these "bipedal" folks? Or both? I agree!!!
Yes, this! Also, ALL of the bipedal people should have their "bis" amputated by Government Almighty, so ass to FORCE these special-in-their-own-minds assholes to becum simple ordinary "pedals" like the rest of us plain and humble folks!!!
Ass for MEEEE, I REALLY hate shit when bipedal so-called “people” LOOK at me in pubic restrooms, where I can get NO rest at ALL! I just KNOW that they (or zee or zem or twatever they want to be called) are admiring my shapely gall bladder, ogling my voluptuous pancreas, and fantasizing about fondling my neurons and my astrocytes!
ALSO note that many of these "special" bipedal freaks (and their fellow travelers) are also bipedalphiliac preverts! They just LOVE that them thar bipeds!!! Now they're even getting organized into so-called "NAMBLA", the North American Man-Biped Love Association!!! Preverts, ALL of them!!! I hope that they get whut's cumming to them!!!
(Ass for me, I am manning my barricades, girding my loins, and guarding My Precious Bodily Fluids! I humbly suggest and molest that all Right-Stinking humanoids do likewise!)
Nobody plans to ruin America. The ones who do according to you probably think you plan to ruin America.
If you could suspend your hatred and reflexive opposition for a moment and engage your brain instead of your emotions, you might notice that both sides actually want to solve problems. They differ on the proposed remedies, all of which come with unintended consequences. Believe it or not, the vast majority of people have good intentions. Unfortunately good intentions don’t guarantee good outcomes. What I see from haters like yourself is that you see bad outcomes and assume those were intended. But only when the other side does it. Your side has pure intentions, and if the outcomes are awful the other side must have done something. Here’s a clue: they feel the same about you. So maybe if you stopped being a boiling kettle of hatred, you could agree on problems and argue about solutions, instead of ascribing ill intent to anyone who disagrees with you.
Just a thought.
I didn't say they plan to ruin it, I said their plans will ruin it.
Notice the difference between my stated position and your strawman is exactly the point you're making, that the effect is unintentional.
Ultimately this means your best bet is to take your own advice here:
If you could suspend your hatred and reflexive opposition for a moment and engage your brain instead of your emotions,
and here:
maybe if you stopped being a boiling kettle of hatred, you could agree on problems and argue about solutions, instead of ascribing ill intent to anyone who disagrees with you.
But it's you so we know instead you will fantasize that those you hate said something else.
“and all their efforts to do so” with “do so” referring back to “ruin America” means you’re now lying. Or were you lying then?
Whatever. You think you can win arguments by calling people hypocrites. That doesn’t make people wrong. Just makes you part of the tu quoque club.
sarc is lying again because while he criticizes others for seeking conflict his own constitution demands he misread others to justify attacking them even if it's as ridiculous as pretending The Population Bomb was not left wing.
Here is the actual sentence:
[I oppose anyone whose plans will ruin America and all their efforts to do so.]
See what he does? He ignores the clear statement and then pretends a later generalized statement overrides it. I guess pretending not to speak English isn't among his stupidest ideas, so he's got that going for him.
You think you can win arguments by calling people hypocrites.
I've never called you a hypocrite. I've pointed out your positions cannot be supported except by double standards, which means thy are wrong. If they were correct you wouldn't need double standards to justify them.
You think you can win arguments by calling people hypocrites.
It's so weird you think this is a damning characterization when even if true it would make others a less extreme version of you.
There's plenty of black pill from the right too.
If you asked me about the first, definitive, political "black pill" moment that I thought I could identify and defend, it would be the Exodus from this very magazine as the result of a story that was "too local" and the founding of a glib site, that shall not be named, operated by the departed commenters.
At that point, it was pretty clear that this magazine wasn't about the donors or libertarianism or actual libertarian interest stories. If we were going to get stories out of Bryan, OH or Laredo, TX or Oklahoma Christian University (or whatever) they were going to fit the benefactors' or a/the writers' agenda.
When faced with a choice between socialist panic-mongering to push their socialist agenda, and conservatives justifying all of their prudish puritanical prohibitionism on the will of god or some higher moral code they want to impose on us, my choice is: "NEITHER!" I can understand that you might object more strenuously to the socialists since they have been much more successful in imposing their agenda on us over time; but it is where the prohibitionists from both sectors have agreed that I find the most dangerous and destructive: the war on drugs and the never-ending war to make the world safe for democracy.
I can understand that you might object more strenuously to the socialists since they have been much more successful in imposing their agenda on us over time;
One of the key reasons to root for Trump to win over Kamala is that he will inevitably be less effective in implementing the right's agenda than she would the left's. The government itself will resist him, as will courts and effectively all of our other institutions while those same institutions will implement hers regardless of what she does. She's no more competent than he is, but she has a machine backing her up while he does not. Obama didn't write or select any of Obamacare, it is the machine that matters. This is why the left spent most of 5 decades working to control our institutions.
/sigh
FIFY
It is time to divest yourself of the fallacy that time spent in college "earning" college credentials is the same as "education".
Amen!
"I love the uneducated!"
- a once and future president
"New York Times star reporter Walter Duranty covered up mass famine there."
And what is Stossel covering up? Another Russian catastrophe, much more recent, AFTER the fall of communism.
Results Mortality increased substantially after the economic crisis in 1998, with life expectancy falling to 58.9 years among men and 71.8 years among women by 2001. Most of these fluctuations were due to changes in mortality from vascular disease and violent deaths (mainly suicides, homicides, unintentional poisoning, and traffic incidents) among young and middle aged adults. Trends were similar in all parts of Russia. An extra 2.5-3 million Russian adults died in middle age in the period 1992-2001 than would have been expected based on 1991 mortality.
Conclusions Russian mortality was already high in 1991 and has increased further in the subsequent decade. Fluctuations in mortality seem to correlate strongly with underlying economic and societal factors. On an individual level, alcohol consumption is strongly implicated in being at least partially responsible for many of these trends.
Results Mortality increased substantially after the economic crisis in 1998, with life expectancy falling to 58.9 years among men and 71.8 years among women by 2001. Most of these fluctuations were due to changes in mortality from vascular disease and violent deaths (mainly suicides, homicides, unintentional poisoning, and traffic incidents) among young and middle aged adults.
Isn't it interesting left wingers suddenly figured out violent deaths impact life expectancy. Why do you suppose they still deny this when discussing American healthcare?
" they still deny this when discussing American healthcare?"
New York Times? Walter Duranty? John Stossel?
Left wing Reason commenters.
The comment was concerning the catastrophe in Russia after communism was abandoned and capitalism adopted. It was not about the American 'health care.' Read it again if you doubt me.
What a strange comment. Are you trying to claim violent deaths effect life expectancy in Russia but not in America? Or are you trying to claim no one can comment unless they make the point you want them to make?
Your comment recognizes how violent deaths effect life expectancy. This relationship was specifically denied on Reason last week in the context of evaluating the American healthcare system.
"Fluctuations in mortality seem to correlate strongly with underlying economic and societal factors."
In this case the economic and societal factors were Russia's abandoning communism in favor of capitalism.
"What a strange comment."
I thought it was even stranger that Stossel mentions the New York Times and Duranty, but ignores the more recent catastrophe associated with Russia's transition to capitalism.
"This relationship was specifically denied on Reason last week in the context of evaluating the American healthcare system."
My comment was concerning Stossel ignoring a catastrophe in an article published today.
Russia's abandoning communism in favor of capitalism.
Reminder that trueman wasn't lying when he admitted to posting bullshit as an end in itself.
MTrueman, would ye change yer mind in ANY way, if I find links to back up the following?
I'm too lazy to look up links about this, but I have read that post-USSR-collapse, the fat cats over there forbade western companies from buying being-sold-off USSR factories, etc. That would have required ENTIRELY too much humility on the part of USSR politicians and other fat cats! It would almost definitely have worked out better that way, for common people in the USSR. Such a sell-off would almost definitely have hurt the Pride and Precious Baby Patriotic Feelings of the common people in the USSR ass well, I suspect. Pride sucks! Humility works!
So then we had ONLY USSR fat-cats being allowed to buy (at fire-sale prices) USSR assets! And look at what this shit got them, and us!!!
"So then we had ONLY USSR fat-cats being allowed to buy (at fire-sale prices) USSR assets!"
Russian fat-cats are at least subject to Russian law, but foreign oligarchs not. And I'm not sure if Western oligarchs would have managed things much differently. They are equally interested in profits and equally susceptible to the threats of mafiosa. Neither had much interest in the welfare of millions of dispossessed.
At least Western business owners had experiences with being disciplined by the wishes of free-choice buyers, while communist fat-cats did NOT! Shit is THAT simple! WHO has been your boss; free-choice buyers or your fellow political fat-cats?
A quote from the movie The Informant!
An ADM executive: The customers are our enemy. The competitors are our friend.
That's what oligarchy is all about. The 'free choice buyers' are not in the driver's seat. Rather they are lied to, hoodwinked and squeezed at every step of the way.
Free-choice buyers had FAR more choices in the USA (and do today as well) compared to the USSR and now Russia. Who has the higher standard of living? Whose economy is meeting the needs of their people better?
" Whose economy is meeting the needs of their people better?"
My post was about comparing the last days of communism in the USSR with Russia's first days of capitalism in which up to 3 million had their lives cut short thanks to the economic and social upheavals that ensued.
My post was also about how pundits and commenters like to memory hole the above if indeed they were ever aware of the sad facts.
"My post was about comparing the last days of communism in the USSR with Russia's first days of capitalism in which up to 3 million had their lives cut short thanks to the economic and social upheavals that ensued."
OK, cool, gotcha! I now understand better, what ye are saying!
Western fat-cats should ideally have been able to help ease their pain... At the price of a few dollars of profits!!!! Butt NOOOO, profits-are-evil and Russian nationalistic (ultimately selfish and self-thwarting) PRIDE got in the way of that!
MTrueMan, see below response from me asking AI = "Perplexity" about this:
Based on the search results provided, there is no explicit mention of Western businesses being allowed or restricted from bidding on Soviet enterprises during the privatization process following the break-up of the USSR. However, the privatization process appears to have primarily benefited insiders and former Soviet elites rather than foreign investors.
The privatization in Russia was carried out rapidly and in a decentralized manner, with a focus on distributing state assets to Russian citizens and insiders[1][2]. The main mechanisms used were:
1. Voucher privatization: Every Russian citizen received a privatization voucher, supposedly worth 10,000 rubles, to purchase shares in state enterprises[2][4].
2. Insider privatization: Managers and employees of state enterprises were given preferential treatment in acquiring shares of their companies[1][2].
3. Loans-for-shares scheme: Large state industrial assets were leased through rigged auctions to politically connected insiders and commercial banks[1].
These methods primarily benefited:
1. Former factory directors who became factory owners[5].
2. Nomenklatura oligarchs (Soviet economic elites who privatized industries they previously regulated)[5].
3. Non-nomenklatura oligarchs (individuals who took advantage of the chaotic privatization process)[5].
The privatization process was largely designed to quickly transfer state assets to private Russian ownership, with the aim of preventing a return to communism[5]. The focus on rapid privatization and the use of insider-friendly mechanisms suggest that Western businesses were not a primary target for acquiring Soviet enterprises during this period.
It's worth noting that the privatization process was heavily influenced by Russian officials and some Western advisors, but the emphasis was on domestic ownership rather than foreign investment[4][5]. The chaotic nature of the privatization and the lack of established economic institutions in Russia likely made it difficult for Western businesses to participate significantly in this process[4].
Citations:
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privatization_in_Russia
[2] https://econreview.studentorg.berkeley.edu/privatization-of-the-banking-industry-in-the-russian-federation/
Other citations stripped off because Reason will refuse my post otherwise!!! Summary is that the USSR rigged the game to favor THEIR locally grown fat-cats, to the detriment of ALL of their natives!!! And outsiders! National pride SUCKS hind titty, meaning "MY Tribe is BEST", to the detriment of sensible (NON-proud) humans EVERYWHERE!!! I, for one, would like to be ruled by SENSIBLE and BENEVOLENT space aliens, ass opposed to Donald Trump, right now, despite ALL of Trump's "checking the Right boxes" about being the same species, sex, language group, skin color, etc.!
Communism works in theory, but so does capitalism. Reality is a much harder than theory and that is why both systems have strong points and points of failure. In reality people's governments blend the two systems to create economic systems that, again in theory, will meet the needs of people served by the government. The degree of blending is what often differentiates a countries economic system. The blend will often also dictate the success of the country's economy.
Communism works only in a naïve and oversimplified theory that ignores how humans actually behave in large numbers. It has never remotely come close to working in practice. We know capitalism works because we've seen it work. No theory needed. That's not to say it solves all problems for all people. But empirically it's the only way anyone has seen so far to vastly improve standards of living for most people.
"But empirically it's the only way anyone has seen so far to vastly improve standards of living for most people."
After all the wars waged by capitalist countries in the last century and into this one, that's a strange thing to say. War is the health of the state as someone put it. I don't see a state of constant warfare is any kind of improvement.
Who caused the current invasive war against Ukraine; predominantly capitalistic nations, or predominantly authorShitarian / collectivist / anti-individual-freedom nations(s)?
WHO is to blame, and how would YOU stop this war?
Well, it was Russia who launched the special military operation, to counter a well articulated threat of NATO expansion. Both share at least some blame, and both are capitalist. The civil war in Congo was fueled by capitalist need for control over resource extraction, as was the war to unseat Saddam.
HOW was the West to be blamed? WHO violated the Budapest Accords? WHO invaded another nation? "You MADE me do shit, by pissing me off?" You pissed me off by acting as if YOUR nation belonged to YOU? You have anything better than that?
"HOW was the West to be blamed? "
By pursuing NATO expansion. That was something the Bush 1 administration promised would not happen. Russia launched a pre-emptive attack to prevent a hostile power from encroaching on their sphere of influence, something they take very seriously. It was also the West that kept the war going by persuading Ukraine not to accept a Russian peace proposal within weeks of the invasion.
So a completely honest and fair analogy is, tomorrow Canada (their people and their government) decide to join a DEFENSIVE alliance with geographically nearby Russia, to guard against invasion by the USA. The USA "feels" threatened in "our" sphere of influence. Are we now justified... After all, Russia expanded their alliance to threaten "our" sphere of influence... Shall we then invade Canada? Would you support that?
Oh, and any outside busy-bodies helping Canada to defend themselves against the USA invaders, would now become the warmongers, to complete the picture!
"Are we now justified... After all, Russia expanded their alliance to threaten "our" sphere of influence... Shall we then invade Canada? Would you support that?"
You asked who is to blame, and I tried to answer. Whether the Russian invasion is justified or whether I support it are different issues.
Personally, I was not happy with the invasion. I thought Putin, an ex-KGB officer was smarter than that, and skeptical of military operations. Assassinations, election rigging, disinformation campaigns, rent a mobs, honey traps, bribery and other spy activities were more to his liking. But, that said, I understand the reluctance of letting Crimea start hosting NATO bases. and bridled at the ill treatment of Russian speakers in the Donbas.
OK, fair enough. Thanks for being a fair-minded voice around that them here-there parts... Entirely TOO rare around that them here-there parts!
Ethnic-ancestral Canadians go back home!!! If'n ye feel mistreated here... We will invade you THERE, to help ya feel better about it!
Well that wasn't quite right... Canada is mistreating ethnic-ancestral Americans (in Canada) who don't say "eh?" and love those moose enough?! Let's invade Canada and set shit right!
Russian invasions suck... I think that we agree about that much! I will PASS on Russian invasions on MY street, thanks much! Don't drop the bomb on MY street, is all that I'm asking!
Neither communism nor capitalism even EXIST "in theory." The definition of "theory" does not even come close to covering concepts because there is nothing in philosophical concepts that can be tested with any kind of scientific methodology. If it were possible to construct a model to predict the outcome of a well-defined communist system; and a well-defined capitalist system; and compare the two outcomes according to specified criteria; then you could construct an economic system theory. All such models, however, are iterative in nature and become wildly inaccurate after about ten iterations under Chaos Theory (which, unlike economics and sociology, is an actual theory tested by legitimate scientific methodology) and therefore cannot be subjected to theoretical analysis with the current state of the art.
Fan theories have suggested that the red pill may represent an allegory for transgender people or a story of Lana and Lilly Wachowski's history as coming out as transgender.[17][18] During the 1990s, a common transgender hormone therapy for trans women involved Premarin, a maroon tablet, while a common antidepressant prescribed to closeted trans women at the time, Prozac, was blue.[19] Lilly Wachowski stated in August 2020 that the filmmakers had intentionally included transgender themes in the film.[20]
Jean Baudrillard hated the movie The Matrix, and wrote that it was based on a misunderstanding of his book Simulacra and Simulation. Baudrillard wrote the the hyper-real has replaced reality, and it was no longer possible to distinguish between fact and fiction, and no pill, whatever its color, is about to help.
The hyper-real is a carnival of mirrors reflecting images projected from other mirrors onto the omnipresent television and computer screen and the screen of consciousness, which in turn refers the image to its previous storehouse of images also produced by simulatory mirrors. Caught up in the universe of simulations, the “masses” are “bathed in a media massage” without messages or meaning, a mass age where classes disappear, and politics is dead, as are the grand dreams of disalienation, liberation, and revolution.
I find both of these narratives to be unlikely. "The Matrix" is most closely related to the novel "To Your Scattered Bodies Go" by Philip Jose Farmer.
There’s reality and everything else isn’t.
People overcomplicate what they don’t understand. Eliminate the ambiguity and reality is readily apparent.
Reality is easy. Keep it simple stupid.
"Reality is easy."
It would involve turning back the clock, destroying the house of mirrors we've built around ourselves, according to Baudrillard.
What makes you believe that to be true?
Like I said, easy.
I'm not sure it's true. It's what Baudrillard wrote. He's a pessimist, and I'm an optimist, always on the lookout for a positive spin on things. Still, it's worth noting, especially since The Matrix specifically refers to his work and quotes 'the desert of the real.' Baudrillard is one of the more easily understood of the post moderinists, in my opinion, so worth familiarizing yourself with.
You’re not sure it’s true.
That and a nickel is worth .05.
Next time, open with that, “you’re not sure what you say is true”, and you won’t be taken seriously enough to waste anyone’s time.
“you’re not sure what you say is true”
It was never about me. It's about Baudrillard and The Matrix.
Or are you just the middleman?
Are you in contact with Baudrillard right now?
Because if it’s you responding to me, maybe you should own your response.
Baudrillard died a few years back. I'm just trying to summarize his ideas. If you or others can do a better job, go for it. I welcome another take on the matter.
So we’ve established that you’ll say what you don’t know is true and won’t even own doing that.
You responded to my comment about reality which had nothing to do with the fictional matrix.
You also demonstrated a perfect example of overcomplicating what you don’t understand.
Here we are, no further towards a shared understanding because of your choice not to respond to what I actually said.
Like I said, sharing reality is easy if you keep it simple stupid.
"Here we are, no further towards a shared understanding because of your choice not to respond to what I actually said."
If you want to improve your understanding of Baudrillard's ideas, read his book.
http://library.gift/main/8617E8DD554D288D162B8AE65101E076
If not, find someone else's ankles to bite. I owe you nothing.
You possess nothing I need.
I’m pleased with the optics.
How about that.
A study confirms 'commie' education ...
*is* literally Commie-Indoctrination Camps.
Will there be 'Commie' Labor Camps next?
Why did frog boil to death again?
I think we forget one thing. Kids don't think adults are cool. Sure some are glad their blue haired teacher, "gets them" but most just go along and make fun of them with their friends, being their back. Just like we did. My 28 year old, college educated son and most of his peers just voted for Trump. I'm not saying that's good. I'm saying they rebel.
Not just kids. They learn from adults to be narcissistic and bigoted. That’s why the cycle repeats.
It’s an addiction. Reality demonstrates what you are and aren’t entitled to. So corrupt people reject it.
There’s your black pill.
The white pill is criminalizing lying, the rejection of reality.
I'm pleasantly surprised to see Reason publishing something that acknowledges the existence of Michael Malice.