Russia is the bad guy by default as they started the war. However, considering the limited use of conscripts on the Russian side actually makes Ukraine look pretty bad, too. Most Ukrainian men are not allowed to leave the country and are forced into conscription, which can entail serving on the front line. This may well involve killing people and getting killed, too. Conscription really is the most horrendous abuse of state power, and is the antithesis of individual liberty. People are forced to do something against their will for pay that they have not agreed to in the defence of a collectivist organisation (the state) for which they may have little sympathy, and may end up becoming both indiscriminate killers, destroyers of private property, and dead in the process.
With our, the west's early on,whatever it takes 24/7 propaganda & even today's 20/7 it's just take a little more I've found Constantine's Real Reporter a good place to get an idea of the other side of the story.
Yes he's, duh, living in Moscow , pro Russia, none the less whichever way one leans, it's good to hear both sides.
At least one of the posters on a forum where I am active is Russian living in Russia and intelligent, which makes him a valuable source for a perspective I don't get from US sources.
In principle, the Soviets turned to private enterprise and competition when their planning procedures became too costly. The most widely appreciated is allowing collective farmers [use of] their own plots of land. [If memory serves, the size of the allowable plots was adjusted to scarcity.] From NY Times, 1982:
Private-plot farmers use just 1.4 percent of the Soviet Union's farmland, but produce 61 percent of its potatoes, 54 percent of its fruit, 34.3 percent of its eggs, 30.2 percent of its vegetables and 29 percent of its meat and milk.
The other activity was defense. Now, there weren't private plots, but there was competition in awarding defense contracts.
I've seen similar interviews. Of course, I don't know what's going on throughout Russia, but it seems like these strategies are a recipe for hyperinflation, especially if oil prices don't rise.
Fair but what is the alternative, slavery? Also the government gets most of that money back taxes, fees, inflation, economic stimulus ,etc. The true cost is much less. Hyperinflation is bad sure but slavery is worse.
Yep what he said. If you aren't going to get soldiers voluntarily via free market mechanisms that leaves press gangs because no nation has ever ended a war on the basis "well I guess we lost, we can't get enough volunteers".
I don't know which forums you listen to, but there is an active movement here in the US to stop funding it and pull everybody out as soon as we can, lest someone do something that would provoke a nuclear response by Russia. I follow and recommend vivabarneslaw.locals.com, which is a podcast by two pro-Trump civil rights lawyers.
I wouldn't interpret these developments as a hard turn to capitalism in Russia. It does look that way if you only take two data points: 1970s USSR and 2020s Russia.
There is no doubt that there was a shift towards more free enterprise overtime there. Russia has had actual businesses, and has also had a private sector in the armament industry for a long time now. Notably, they relied on the Wagner group in past stages of the war. But to the hypothesis that the private sector is flourishing in Russia, I contrapose the fact that this war was disastrous for business - lots of investment left Russia, and Putin has been clamoring for it to come back since.
Rather, I think Russia made a rushed transition from communism to what was once known as "state capitalism", which is the prevailing model among the world's preeminent powers, including China, Japan, and unfortunately, increasingly the US and Europe. When the history of our age is written, this model will be traced back to Napoleon, or perhaps England during its mercantilist phase. The ideal subject is East India Company instead of Tesla.
After transitioning to state capitalism, states seem to acquire an urge for territorial expansion, motivated perhaps by access to new tools of mass control, like a powerful nationalist ideology, or efficient taxation mechanisms, which includes a semi-independent central bank. I'm not a historian, but I see hints of this in England in the 7 Years War. Russia's monetary system has been the tool by which it has sustained itself through the war in Ukraine, so far.
The good news is that this doesn't appear to be a fully irreversible transition. Milton Friedman noted the importance of keeping ideas alive, and pointed to Adam Smith and the repeal of the Corn Laws. In 1810, the whole of Europe was dominated by France, and only Britain stood to oppose it, playing an intricate chess game in which Castlereagh nourished free trade in Latin America and the Continental System attempted to snuff it out back home. ln 1945, Hitler fumbles his grasp on Europe.
So, one should not be manichaeist. Russia has true private industry, as does China, even if only at the fringes, as do we. Communists like to say "a spark can set the whole prairie on fire". History has shown that empires don't last, and I believe Adam Smith said as much, somewhere in Wealth of Nations.
Previous high casualty wars used some mix of conscription and patriotism/social pressure. I don't think Australia had a draft in WWI but a lot of Australians died.
Both sides in the Civil War had conscription but you could get out of it by providing a paid substitute. From a quick web search, 50,000 to 150,000 of the Confederate soldiers are estimated to have been substitutes. Payment for a substitute in the North could be as much as 400 gold dollars, about a year's wages. For the first two years of the war both armies were mostly volunteers, but after that a lot were draftees or substitutes.
"It made me wonder to what degree the same pattern, soldiers paying for better equipment at their own expense, existed openly or covertly in past wars, including ours."
What makes me wonder, is whether you could be arsed to find an answer to the question you posed to yourself.
As far as I know buying your own weapons isn't a thing and you'd never see troops getting their own drones for self-defence for the past few decades at least. But adding small stuff quality of life stuff like your own privately purchased boots or water bottle or compass is pretty common. But what's allowed, or turned a blind eye to by your sergeant, varies. Some stuff like scopes or sleeping bags are very situational, since sometimes privately bought ones are better, but if they're worse they can literally cost lives.
That's just from me reading a lot of autobiographies and participating on military subreddits, I don't have any actual field experience.
I remember during our return to Iraq in the 2000s, a Newsweek article about great things to buy family members who were deployed. Including additional body armor. Don't know how realistic this was, or how much was spent on civilian supplementation of military equipment... but there is at least some anecdata.
Unrelated: your comment about war promoting capitalism reminds me of the broken window fallacy. Obviously they can both be true, one is talking about "promoting" while the other "production", but it did rhyme somewhat.
There are multiple units of English speaking foreign volunteers on frontlines for Ukraine. Such as:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqbnOYjifQM
https://www.youtube.com/@CivDiv
Thanks. But, given his comment, German or Polish speaking volunteers would be more relevant.
And I can't tell from your links how many English speaking volunteers are involved, only that some are.
Russia is the bad guy by default as they started the war. However, considering the limited use of conscripts on the Russian side actually makes Ukraine look pretty bad, too. Most Ukrainian men are not allowed to leave the country and are forced into conscription, which can entail serving on the front line. This may well involve killing people and getting killed, too. Conscription really is the most horrendous abuse of state power, and is the antithesis of individual liberty. People are forced to do something against their will for pay that they have not agreed to in the defence of a collectivist organisation (the state) for which they may have little sympathy, and may end up becoming both indiscriminate killers, destroyers of private property, and dead in the process.
Ukrainiains are way better at it..if they got half the resources of russia invaders would been alredy kicked out.
With our, the west's early on,whatever it takes 24/7 propaganda & even today's 20/7 it's just take a little more I've found Constantine's Real Reporter a good place to get an idea of the other side of the story.
Yes he's, duh, living in Moscow , pro Russia, none the less whichever way one leans, it's good to hear both sides.
At least one of the posters on a forum where I am active is Russian living in Russia and intelligent, which makes him a valuable source for a perspective I don't get from US sources.
There's more than 'both sides'. Numbers bigger than two exist.
Fascinating!
In principle, the Soviets turned to private enterprise and competition when their planning procedures became too costly. The most widely appreciated is allowing collective farmers [use of] their own plots of land. [If memory serves, the size of the allowable plots was adjusted to scarcity.] From NY Times, 1982:
Private-plot farmers use just 1.4 percent of the Soviet Union's farmland, but produce 61 percent of its potatoes, 54 percent of its fruit, 34.3 percent of its eggs, 30.2 percent of its vegetables and 29 percent of its meat and milk.
The other activity was defense. Now, there weren't private plots, but there was competition in awarding defense contracts.
Yes, when the self professed socialist cared about results, like in the military, they showed that they did understand incentives.
I've seen similar interviews. Of course, I don't know what's going on throughout Russia, but it seems like these strategies are a recipe for hyperinflation, especially if oil prices don't rise.
Fair but what is the alternative, slavery? Also the government gets most of that money back taxes, fees, inflation, economic stimulus ,etc. The true cost is much less. Hyperinflation is bad sure but slavery is worse.
I don't quite follow. Can you tell me who is at risk of being enslaved?
Conscription?
I guess that's it Thanks
Yep what he said. If you aren't going to get soldiers voluntarily via free market mechanisms that leaves press gangs because no nation has ever ended a war on the basis "well I guess we lost, we can't get enough volunteers".
Thanks
Only if they expand their money supply too much. Lots of government spending while controlling the money supply will not lead to hyperinflation.
It will lead to crowding out, though.
Russia seems to have an unusually competent central bank though. And that is widely acknowledged.
I don't know which forums you listen to, but there is an active movement here in the US to stop funding it and pull everybody out as soon as we can, lest someone do something that would provoke a nuclear response by Russia. I follow and recommend vivabarneslaw.locals.com, which is a podcast by two pro-Trump civil rights lawyers.
Fascinating! Thank you for sharing, David.
I wouldn't interpret these developments as a hard turn to capitalism in Russia. It does look that way if you only take two data points: 1970s USSR and 2020s Russia.
There is no doubt that there was a shift towards more free enterprise overtime there. Russia has had actual businesses, and has also had a private sector in the armament industry for a long time now. Notably, they relied on the Wagner group in past stages of the war. But to the hypothesis that the private sector is flourishing in Russia, I contrapose the fact that this war was disastrous for business - lots of investment left Russia, and Putin has been clamoring for it to come back since.
Rather, I think Russia made a rushed transition from communism to what was once known as "state capitalism", which is the prevailing model among the world's preeminent powers, including China, Japan, and unfortunately, increasingly the US and Europe. When the history of our age is written, this model will be traced back to Napoleon, or perhaps England during its mercantilist phase. The ideal subject is East India Company instead of Tesla.
After transitioning to state capitalism, states seem to acquire an urge for territorial expansion, motivated perhaps by access to new tools of mass control, like a powerful nationalist ideology, or efficient taxation mechanisms, which includes a semi-independent central bank. I'm not a historian, but I see hints of this in England in the 7 Years War. Russia's monetary system has been the tool by which it has sustained itself through the war in Ukraine, so far.
The good news is that this doesn't appear to be a fully irreversible transition. Milton Friedman noted the importance of keeping ideas alive, and pointed to Adam Smith and the repeal of the Corn Laws. In 1810, the whole of Europe was dominated by France, and only Britain stood to oppose it, playing an intricate chess game in which Castlereagh nourished free trade in Latin America and the Continental System attempted to snuff it out back home. ln 1945, Hitler fumbles his grasp on Europe.
So, one should not be manichaeist. Russia has true private industry, as does China, even if only at the fringes, as do we. Communists like to say "a spark can set the whole prairie on fire". History has shown that empires don't last, and I believe Adam Smith said as much, somewhere in Wealth of Nations.
Very nice
"New houses are being built, smarter cars are turning up on the streets, and nail bars and gyms are opening". Where does this wealth come from ?
That money falls from the sky, ok, but wealth, it's curious.
This is wild. How long can Russia afford to pay like this? It seems like a totally new model for maintaining public support of a war effort.
Previous high casualty wars used some mix of conscription and patriotism/social pressure. I don't think Australia had a draft in WWI but a lot of Australians died.
Both sides in the Civil War had conscription but you could get out of it by providing a paid substitute. From a quick web search, 50,000 to 150,000 of the Confederate soldiers are estimated to have been substitutes. Payment for a substitute in the North could be as much as 400 gold dollars, about a year's wages. For the first two years of the war both armies were mostly volunteers, but after that a lot were draftees or substitutes.
Good context, thanks!
"It made me wonder to what degree the same pattern, soldiers paying for better equipment at their own expense, existed openly or covertly in past wars, including ours."
What makes me wonder, is whether you could be arsed to find an answer to the question you posed to yourself.
Fucking Yank twat.
I figured that with any luck some of my readers were ex-military and would answer from their experience.
As far as I know buying your own weapons isn't a thing and you'd never see troops getting their own drones for self-defence for the past few decades at least. But adding small stuff quality of life stuff like your own privately purchased boots or water bottle or compass is pretty common. But what's allowed, or turned a blind eye to by your sergeant, varies. Some stuff like scopes or sleeping bags are very situational, since sometimes privately bought ones are better, but if they're worse they can literally cost lives.
That's just from me reading a lot of autobiographies and participating on military subreddits, I don't have any actual field experience.
Seems like asking for answers is a pretty good way of finding answers.
I remember during our return to Iraq in the 2000s, a Newsweek article about great things to buy family members who were deployed. Including additional body armor. Don't know how realistic this was, or how much was spent on civilian supplementation of military equipment... but there is at least some anecdata.
Unrelated: your comment about war promoting capitalism reminds me of the broken window fallacy. Obviously they can both be true, one is talking about "promoting" while the other "production", but it did rhyme somewhat.