Ukraine Megathread: Crimea River Build a Bridge, Get Over It

[Constantinopolis]

Most of the Ukrainian industry is state owned.

False. Most of the Ukrainian industry was privatized in the 1990s, same as in the majority of other post-Soviet republics. How do you think the oligarchs made their money? They are the new private owners of all those former state-owned companies. Ukraine is more capitalist than the Scandinavian countries, and arguably more capitalist than France and large parts of Western Europe too.

As for the rest of your post, you clearly did not understand what I meant by "rich". A guy making $50k per year in the present-day US isn't "rich". A guy making $21.6 million per year is rich (that's Mitt Romney, by the way, in case you didn't click the link).

And no, you can't make that kind of money being a truck driver.

Also, fun fact: 5 of the top 10 richest people in the world in 2014 completely inherited their wealth (Bettencourt, the Waltons, and the Kochs). The others were mostly born in relatively wealthy families, too.

Edit: It is true that many post-Soviet states are ruled by largely the same elites as in Soviet times, but that just goes to show that the transition to capitalism largely benefited the people who were already at the top and screwed over the working class.

Your claim that the persistence of former elites shows that those countries somehow lack "true" capitalism is complete nonsense, however. Socialism and capitalism aren't genetic characteristics. A country isn't socialist or capitalist depending on who is in charge. Just look at China as the prime example. There, not only has the old elite remained in power, but the political system wasn't changed at all. The so-called "Communist Party" is still in charge. Yet China is obviously and blatantly a capitalist country these days. It doesn't matter who is in charge. What matters is what system they use.

[Novus America]

You have made several errors. Actually most people who are really rich usually get there through innovation rather than the corporate ladder.
Corporations are made. Steve Jobs was not rich to begin, he was working building computers in his garage with some friends. He did not climb the corporate ladder, he made his own corporation. This is how you get really rich, create a novel product or service.

You say truck drivers cannot get rich no matter how hard they work? Blatantly false. Actually the average American heavy truck driver makes nearly 50k a year. And you can easily make a lot more. I worked as a truck driver in the year between when I got off active duty and when I could start law school. I go paid over $1000 a WEEK, with no experience. Many truck drivers make over 100k a year. That is enough for a house on the sea in many places in the US.

You can get rich as a truck driver. Nearly half of American truck drivers own their own trucks, they are called "owner-operators" in the industry.
So they are both workers and capitalists, at the same time! Yes. Almost half. Messes up that whole class myth. They create a Limited Liability Company, (LLC) for their own business (their truck).
You can save enough money driving a truck to buy one. You can get a good heavy truck for 50k, about your salary, but credit is widely available, in fact many companies will loan you the money, if you contract to work with them as a contractor for a few years. Or you can lease-to-own from many companies.

Once you by your own truck, you save up enough to buy a second truck. And a third, and so on. I know of a guy who did this, he owned the company I worked for. He started out as a poor rural truck driver. Now he owns more the 200 trucks. And he is a multi-millionaire.

Oh and my grandfather worked as a construction worker and mechanic. He owns a small house by the sea in Florida. You do not have to be rich to have a house by the sea.

Of course you can get rich other ways. But your understanding of mostly capitalist systems is lacking.
Their is no such thing as a true "capitalist" state, which is an unworkable ideal, nearly every country today has a mixed system of state and private ownership. Mixed systems can work. Of course within that their are infinite permutations that can be tried, some better than others. This internet we are using? Would not exist except for a mixed economic system.

Your problem is you are too black and white. The world is not like that. Their is no clear lines, no absolutes. It is never as simple as rich v. poor, capitalist v. socialist, worker v. owner. Every thing is a spectrum, not clear categories.

Of course this is common in the post-Soviet states. Take Ukraine for example. Most of the Ukrainian industry is state owned. Ukraine has never been "capitalist" or a functioning democracy. It is instead caught in a weird twilight zone, as a weird hybrid of the Soviet system with some democratic and capitalists aspects. The same is the case of most states who broke free of the Soviets. The Baltics and Poland (a Soviet satellite and not an actual part of the USSR) fully modernized, and are doing very well. Others like Ukraine never modernized, and only adopted superficial trappings of a modern capitalist democracy and retained much of the Soviet system and politicians, and things are horrible there. In countries like the central Asian republics they are ruled by the same elites from the Soviet days.

Many people of many post Soviet states are dissatisfied with capitalism and democracy, despite the fact that most post-Soviet states are neither democratic, nor particularly capitalist and never have been as much or most industry remains state-owned. Russia was never a democracy either, Yeltsin's regime was hardly democratic, and not properly capitalist either, it was a crony based oligarchy where most got rich through crime and connections, not business acumen, and many elections rigged.

So before they say a modern "capitalist" (actually mixed) democracy is bad they should try it first. Too bad most never did.
They have a quasi-Soviet kleptocracy instead. Which I think we can all agree is not the way to go.

I'm now going to ask for a source that the majority of the Ukrainian economy is state-run, and for a list or percentage of current oligarchs and statesmen that were actually "elites". Not Party members, the Party had 19 million members (10% of the Soviet population) of whom over half were industrial workers and collective farmers; I mean actual elites, like the Gosplan, Central Committee, the Supreme Soviet, and the like.

I said industry, not economy. It is hard to get exact numbers because so much of Ukraine's economy is a shadow economy. And the Ukrainian government does not actually know what it owns and does not.
http://www.unian.info/politics/1030857- ... sults.html

Here they are expecting to make more than 20 billion selling government owned industry. Consider Ukraine's total economy is only worth 74.8 billion. And industry is only 26% of that.

Yes, Ukraine never fully privatized.

[Constantinopolis]

I'm now going to ask for a source that the majority of the Ukrainian economy is state-run, and for a list or percentage of current oligarchs and statesmen that were actually "elites". Not Party members, the Party had 19 million members (10% of the Soviet population) of whom over half were industrial workers and collective farmers; I mean actual elites, like the Gosplan, Central Committee, the Supreme Soviet, and the like.

I said industry, not economy. It is hard to get exact numbers because so much of Ukraine's economy is a shadow economy. And the Ukrainian government does not actually know what it owns and does not.
http://www.unian.info/politics/1030857- ... sults.html

Here they are expecting to make more than 20 billion selling government owned industry. Consider Ukraine's total economy is only worth 74.8 billion. And industry is only 26% of that.

That's... not how those numbers work. You're comparing a stock to a flow. Those 74.8 billion are the national income of Ukraine. The 20 billion is the expected value of state-owned industry (emphasis on "expected", by the way - they probably overestimated it).

The sale-value of an entity and the income of that entity are two different things. If you own a business, for example, the money that business makes in a year and the money you could get by selling it are two different things. A comparison between the two is meaningless.

Yes, Ukraine never fully privatized.

No, but it mostly privatized, and that's more than enough to put it well into the capitalist club. All capitalist countries have some state-owned industry.

[Teutonic Germany (Ancient)]

What did the West expect? Ukraine is rightfully in Russia's sphere of influence.

[Navorgska]

What did the West expect? Ukraine is rightfully in Russia's sphere of influence.

>rightfully
>any nation being rightfully under anyone's sphere of influence

I personally have advocated Ukrainian independence from foreign countries since the beginning of Euromaidan, knowing that both the EU and Russia seek only to exploit Ukraine for its resources and money. The damage has already been done, though I believe the ingenuity of the Ukrainian people can repair the damage done to the nation, however the civil war has pitted the people against one another. All that exists at this point are the oligarchs of Ukraine, backed by Israel and/or the EU and US, or those who are for uniting with Russia or going federalist.

[Novus America]

I said industry, not economy. It is hard to get exact numbers because so much of Ukraine's economy is a shadow economy. And the Ukrainian government does not actually know what it owns and does not.
http://www.unian.info/politics/1030857- ... sults.html

Here they are expecting to make more than 20 billion selling government owned industry. Consider Ukraine's total economy is only worth 74.8 billion. And industry is only 26% of that.

That's... not how those numbers work. You're comparing a stock to a flow. Those 74.8 billion are the national income of Ukraine. The 20 billion is the expected value of state-owned industry (emphasis on "expected", by the way - they probably overestimated it).

The sale-value of an entity and the income of that entity are two different things. If you own a business, for example, the money that business makes in a year and the money you could get by selling it are two different things. A comparison between the two is meaningless.

Yes, Ukraine never fully privatized.

No, but it mostly privatized, and that's more than enough to put it well into the capitalist club. All capitalist countries have some state-owned industry.

I am aware of the difference. Where is your source saying the majority of Ukrainian industry is privatized? I want to find exact numbers but reliable numbers are impossible to find. If you have more luck let me know.
Ukraine is such a mess that their own government does not know. So guesses is the best we have.

Yes I said nearly all economies are mixed, but in Ukraine much industry is government owned, to a much higher degree than in developed countries. For example aerospace, energy and defense are government owned. My point is the privatization process is not even close to complete. They are not going to privatize everything and they have only privatized part of what they plan on.

Which goes back to my original point. Ukraine is not the same as it was under the Soviets, but it is not a modern "capitalist" economy either. It is somewhere in a scary twilight zone between the two.
One indicator is the ease of doing business rank. The lower the number, the more capitalist. Ukraine is 137th, one of least capitalist.

[Jinwoy]

That's... not how those numbers work. You're comparing a stock to a flow. Those 74.8 billion are the national income of Ukraine. The 20 billion is the expected value of state-owned industry (emphasis on "expected", by the way - they probably overestimated it).

The sale-value of an entity and the income of that entity are two different things. If you own a business, for example, the money that business makes in a year and the money you could get by selling it are two different things. A comparison between the two is meaningless.


No, but it mostly privatized, and that's more than enough to put it well into the capitalist club. All capitalist countries have some state-owned industry.

I am aware of the difference. Where is your source saying the majority of Ukrainian industry is privatized? I want to find exact numbers but reliable numbers are impossible to find. If you have more luck let me know.
Ukraine is such a mess that their own government does not know. So guesses is the best we have.

Yes I said nearly all economies are mixed, but in Ukraine much industry is government owned, to a much higher degree than in developed countries. For example aerospace, energy and defense are government owned. My point is the privatization process is not even close to complete. They are not going to privatize everything and they have only privatized part of what they plan on.

Which goes back to my original point. Ukraine is not the same as it was under the Soviets, but it is not a modern "capitalist" economy either. It is somewhere in a scary twilight zone between the two.
One indicator is the ease of doing business rank. The lower the number, the more capitalist. Ukraine is 137th, one of least capitalist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Ukraine
27%, but once agriculture reform is pushed, it'll be less than 5% - the Arms Industry, which is a mix of private interests joined into a public conglomerate which is currently held by the State would be the last nationalised specialised industry in the Ukraine.

[Novus America]

I am aware of the difference. Where is your source saying the majority of Ukrainian industry is privatized? I want to find exact numbers but reliable numbers are impossible to find. If you have more luck let me know.
Ukraine is such a mess that their own government does not know. So guesses is the best we have.

Yes I said nearly all economies are mixed, but in Ukraine much industry is government owned, to a much higher degree than in developed countries. For example aerospace, energy and defense are government owned. My point is the privatization process is not even close to complete. They are not going to privatize everything and they have only privatized part of what they plan on.

Which goes back to my original point. Ukraine is not the same as it was under the Soviets, but it is not a modern "capitalist" economy either. It is somewhere in a scary twilight zone between the two.
One indicator is the ease of doing business rank. The lower the number, the more capitalist. Ukraine is 137th, one of least capitalist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Ukraine
27%, but once agriculture reform is pushed, it'll be less than 5% - the Arms Industry, which is a mix of private interests joined into a public conglomerate which is currently held by the State would be the last nationalised specialised industry in the Ukraine.

That is the total economy not just industry, but still it shows how heavily government owned the economy is. Your article also says the numbers are unreliable. The service sector is mostly private. But as you have pointed out the privatization still has a long ways to go.
Of course privatization is no panacea, you need rule of law, fair dealings, a working legal system.

Obviously most post Soviet States have failed to properly modernize.
Compare the former Soviet states to China.
China still has a ways to go but its economy has improved by truly incredible amounts since moving to capitalism.

Again Ukraine is 137th on the ease of business index, it is one of the least capitalist. It is not really socialist or capitalist, just a confused disaster.

[Constantinopolis]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Ukraine
27%, but once agriculture reform is pushed, it'll be less than 5% - the Arms Industry, which is a mix of private interests joined into a public conglomerate which is currently held by the State would be the last nationalised specialised industry in the Ukraine.

That is the total economy not just industry, but still it shows how heavily government owned the economy is.

No, it's not. In terms of total government expenditures as a percent of GDP, Ukraine is almost exactly the same as the OECD average (i.e. the average level among all the Western and/or highly developed capitalist economies):

Obviously most post Soviet States have failed to properly modernize.
Compare the former Soviet states to China.
China still has a ways to go but its economy has improved by truly incredible amounts since moving to capitalism.

You know what's funny, though? China has a much higher share of state-owned industry than the former Soviet states. It has been declining steadily, but it was still around 45% in 2008:



Ignore the lower black line - that's just the number of state-owned enterprises out of the total number of enterprises in China (which is very small because the state-owned enterprises are few in number, even while they are very large in terms of assets and workforce). The blue line indicates the value of the assets owned by Chinese state enterprises as a percentage of total productive assets in the country. This is what we're talking about here.

Again Ukraine is 137th on the ease of business index, it is one of the least capitalist. It is not really socialist or capitalist, just a confused disaster.

"Ease of doing business" =/= capitalism

I mean, I bet it's pretty damn hard to do business in Somalia - what with the lack of government and roving armed gangs and all - but Somalia is arguably one of the most capitalist countries in the world. It sure as hell isn't even slightly socialist in any way, shape or form.

You're confusing Western liberal capitalism with capitalism-in-general. The former is a subset of the latter.

[Costa Fierro]

Ukraine is more capitalist than the Scandinavian countries, and arguably more capitalist than France and large parts of Western Europe too.

I doubt that somehow. Also, there weren't that many companies for ogilarchs to take over and I would assume a large number of wealthy people within Ukraine made their money through entrepreneurship. After all, is Poroshenko's wealth not created almost entirely by chocolate?

[Costa Fierro]

...what do you have against Stalin?

Genocide and ethnic cleansing.

[Constantinopolis]

...what do you have against Stalin?

Genocide and ethnic cleansing.

As opposed to Pinochet's torture and mass murder, which is more acceptable?

Also, it's debatable whether Stalin's mass murders qualify as genocide or not. Of course, it doesn't matter very much what we choose to call it. The point is that it wasn't qualitatively different from what Pinochet did.

[Doritos Locos Tacos]

No matter how hard a truck driver or factory worker or supermarket employee works under capitalism, (s)he will never be able to buy a house near the Black Sea (or any other sea) either.

How do you get rich under capitalism? By working hard at anything you choose to do? No. You can't just pick whatever job you do best and work hard at that. The hardest-working coal miner in the capitalist world is still poor. You can't get rich that way. You have to pick CERTAIN types of careers (usually in the corporate world), and climb your way up the ladder until you are rich. And, of course, many try, but few succeed.

So why are you complaining about the Soviet system? It was similar in this respect: if you wanted to eventually rise to a privileged position, you could join the Communist Party and climb the bureaucratic ladder until you got to the top. Not so different from climbing the corporate ladder under capitalism.

You have made several errors. Actually most people who are really rich usually get there through innovation rather than the corporate ladder.
Corporations are made. Steve Jobs was not rich to begin, he was working building computers in his garage with some friends. He did not climb the corporate ladder, he made his own corporation. This is how you get really rich, create a novel product or service.

You say truck drivers cannot get rich no matter how hard they work? Blatantly false. Actually the average American heavy truck driver makes nearly 50k a year. And you can easily make a lot more. I worked as a truck driver in the year between when I got off active duty and when I could start law school. I go paid over $1000 a WEEK, with no experience. Many truck drivers make over 100k a year. That is enough for a house on the sea in many places in the US.

You can get rich as a truck driver. Nearly half of American truck drivers own their own trucks, they are called "owner-operators" in the industry.
So they are both workers and capitalists, at the same time! Yes. Almost half. Messes up that whole class myth. They create a Limited Liability Company, (LLC) for their own business (their truck).
You can save enough money driving a truck to buy one. You can get a good heavy truck for 50k, about your salary, but credit is widely available, in fact many companies will loan you the money, if you contract to work with them as a contractor for a few years. Or you can lease-to-own from many companies.

Once you by your own truck, you save up enough to buy a second truck. And a third, and so on. I know of a guy who did this, he owned the company I worked for. He started out as a poor rural truck driver. Now he owns more the 200 trucks. And he is a multi-millionaire.

Oh and my grandfather worked as a construction worker and mechanic. He owns a small house by the sea in Florida. You do not have to be rich to have a house by the sea.

Of course you can get rich other ways. But your understanding of mostly capitalist systems is lacking.
Their is no such thing as a true "capitalist" state, which is an unworkable ideal, nearly every country today has a mixed system of state and private ownership. Mixed systems can work. Of course within that their are infinite permutations that can be tried, some better than others. This internet we are using? Would not exist except for a mixed economic system.

Your problem is you are too black and white. The world is not like that. Their is no clear lines, no absolutes. It is never as simple as rich v. poor, capitalist v. socialist, worker v. owner. Every thing is a spectrum, not clear categories.

Of course this is common in the post-Soviet states. Take Ukraine for example. Most of the Ukrainian industry is state owned. Ukraine has never been "capitalist" or a functioning democracy. It is instead caught in a weird twilight zone, as a weird hybrid of the Soviet system with some democratic and capitalists aspects. The same is the case of most states who broke free of the Soviets. The Baltics and Poland (a Soviet satellite and not an actual part of the USSR) fully modernized, and are doing very well. Others like Ukraine never modernized, and only adopted superficial trappings of a modern capitalist democracy and retained much of the Soviet system and politicians, and things are horrible there. In countries like the central Asian republics they are ruled by the same elites from the Soviet days.

Many people of many post Soviet states are dissatisfied with capitalism and democracy, despite the fact that most post-Soviet states are neither democratic, nor particularly capitalist and never have been as much or most industry remains state-owned. Russia was never a democracy either, Yeltsin's regime was hardly democratic, and not properly capitalist either, it was a crony based oligarchy where most got rich through crime and connections, not business acumen, and many elections rigged.

So before they say a modern "capitalist" (actually mixed) democracy is bad they should try it first. Too bad most never did.
They have a quasi-Soviet kleptocracy instead. Which I think we can all agree is not the way to go.

[Imperial City-States]

Genocide and ethnic cleansing.

As opposed to Pinochet's torture and mass murder, which is more acceptable?

Also, it's debatable whether Stalin's mass murders qualify as genocide or not. Of course, it doesn't matter very much what we choose to call it. The point is that it wasn't qualitatively different from what Pinochet did.

Pinochet killed something in the ball park of 4,000 people and tortured some 30ish thousand.

Stalin killed and tortured millions.

Those are immensely different.

[Miletos]

As opposed to Pinochet's torture and mass murder, which is more acceptable?

Also, it's debatable whether Stalin's mass murders qualify as genocide or not. Of course, it doesn't matter very much what we choose to call it. The point is that it wasn't qualitatively different from what Pinochet did.

Pinochet killed something in the ball park of 4,000 people and tortured some 30ish thousand.

Stalin killed and tortured millions.

Those are immensely different.

Do you understand the difference between the word "qualitatively" and the word "quantitatively"?

If you do, did you actually read the post you were replying to?

(Bear in mind that the answer to at least one of those questions is, based on your reply, "no".)

[Jinwoy]

As opposed to Pinochet's torture and mass murder, which is more acceptable?

Also, it's debatable whether Stalin's mass murders qualify as genocide or not. Of course, it doesn't matter very much what we choose to call it. The point is that it wasn't qualitatively different from what Pinochet did.

Pinochet killed something in the ball park of 4,000 people and tortured some 30ish thousand.

Stalin killed and tortured millions.

Those are immensely different.

Didn't one of those sources claim that half of the population of the USSR was imprisoned in gulags (100 million esque)? Do you realise how insane that sounds?

[Imperial City-States]

Pinochet killed something in the ball park of 4,000 people and tortured some 30ish thousand.

Stalin killed and tortured millions.

Those are immensely different.

Do you understand the difference between the word "qualitatively" and the word "quantitatively"?

Either way you phrase it, The result is really the same.

Last time i checked Chile didn't go on with Gulag's and Mass Starvation.

[Costa Fierro]

Also, it's debatable whether Stalin's mass murders qualify as genocide or not.

Not really. It's quite clear that specific ethnic groups were targeted for persecution (and I'm not talking about Ukrainians in this instance).

Of course, it doesn't matter very much what we choose to call it. The point is that it wasn't qualitatively different from what Pinochet did.

Well, yes it is. Because Pinochet was only repressive against leftists. Although the majority of Stalin's persecutions was basically against anyone that sneezed in his direction, Stalin did target specific ethnic groups.

[Miletos]

Do you understand the difference between the word "qualitatively" and the word "quantitatively"?

Either way you phrase it, The result is really the same.

Not really. They're very different. Punching 1 person in the face is not qualitatively different to punching 1,000 people in the face, but it is quantitatively different to punching 1,000 people in the face. It's an important distinction. Your reply was based on the point that Pinochet's Chile and Stalin's USSR were quantitatively different in the scale of their oppression, which is obviously true, whereas Const's post to which you were replying actually used the word "qualitatively" and was arguing on a qualitative basis.

Last time i checked Chile didn't go on with Gulag's and Mass Starvation.

But Pinochet's regime did throw people out of helicopters into the Pacific and murder a load of people in a football stadium (in the immediate aftermath of an antidemocratic treasonous coup), the point being that Pinochet's regime was qualitatively just as keen on repression as Stalin's even if it was quantitatively less so.

[Imperial City-States]

Sort of interesting how this thread went from Putin being Putin, to the state of Post-Soviet Country's, To the Merits of Communism over Capitalism (and visa versa) to the Merits of Stalin as a Dictator over Western installed Dictator's.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Genocide and ethnic cleansing.

As opposed to Pinochet's torture and mass murder, which is more acceptable?

Also, it's debatable whether Stalin's mass murders qualify as genocide or not. Of course, it doesn't matter very much what we choose to call it. The point is that it wasn't qualitatively different from what Pinochet did.

Quantity has a quality all its own...

Not to mention Stalin did specifically target ethnic groups. He just did so, as others have mentioned, alongside of targeting anybody else his paranoid idiocy saw as a threat. Or a potential threat. Or a minor annoyance. Or as a potential jaywalker.

[Neoconstantius]

Meanwhile, in Glorious Democratic™ Ukraine...

Lots of suspect "suicides" and "accidents" happening in that part of the world.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Meanwhile, in Glorious Democratic™ Ukraine...

Lots of suspect "suicides" and "accidents" happening in that part of the world.

Welcome to eastern Europe.

[Teemant]

What did the West expect? Ukraine is rightfully in Russia's sphere of influence.

Seriously? So Ukrainians have no say at all?

[United commonwealth of ayrshire]

What did the West expect? Ukraine is rightfully in Russia's sphere of influence.

Seriously? So Ukrainians have no say at all?

They did have a say. Some of them voted to join Russia and some who weren't given the privilege of democracy are now fighting to separate. But I bet you don't like *those* Ukrainians having their say.