Making Sence Out of Everything that is Called Marxism or Socialism

 

Nowadays many ideologies and political movements calling themselves socialist and Marxists. Despite that they often have little to nothing in common with each other. To make matters worse, all of them like to stake claim on Marx's legacy and claim to be the real Marxist who represent actual views of Marx. Thus, what are Marx's views became distorted and corrupted over time.

 To make sense out of all this mess I decided to write an explanation of what all these movements are and how they all relate to each other. I already wrote couple of articles on this topic, but I think I need to go into more details.

What Marx Wrote

To begin with there was just Marx and he wrote some critique on the economic system that was contemporary to him, that is the middle of 19th century. In this critique he described many issues system already have as well as correctly predicted many future challenges this system with face. To tackle these challenges a system will have to be significantly reformed in order to continue functioning. The reformed system however will be significantly different from its predecessor thus warrant a new name for itself. 

Marx called the contemporary 19th century system a capitalism. A system that will replace it he dubbed socialism and then system that will in turn replace socialism a communism.

Every such replacement will happen naturally and only once level of industrialization and economic development would reach a certain level. The only time Marx mentioned a revolution was a transition from socialism to communism. He argued that amount or change needed would be too great and too hard for some to accept, thus a revolution might be needed to achieve that. In contrast transition from capitalism to socialism would go smoother.

How all that Worked

Now looking back, we can tell that transition from capitalism to socialism indeed happen just as Marx predicted. We do not call this system socialism but for all intends and purposes it is socialism as Marx defined it.

As for how it happens, then in the late 1920s there was a Great Depression. System indeed came to a halt and cannot restart itself on its own. In response to that, Franklin Delano Roosevelt launched a series of weeping reforms that dramatically increased role of the state in economy. As a result, the US government became the biggest employer of the US and either directly or indirectly controlled the entire economy in the interest of the public and state. FDR did not call it socialism but rather New Deal, but for all intends and purposes it was socialism as Marx have defined it several decades ago.

Now Financial Crisis or 2009 calls for a further reform and some brighter minds already have the answer, UBI. However, the conservative side of the world resists. Thus, indeed a revolution might be needed to bring about UBI, or as Marx dubbed it, communism. Once again, we do not use terms Marx used, because these terms are not appropriated by a different people for their own needs.

Marxism

Marx ideas did not go unnoticed and already in 19th century, way before Great Depression and FDR there were people who liked Marx ideas so much, they wanted to bring them into reality here and now.

Marx himself cautioned against that, saying that socialism and communism can only happen when economic development and industrialization reaches certain level. Trying to bring it forward is pointless and stupid as trying to build a 7th floor of the apartment block without completing the 6th floor first. (my metaphor) 

Marxists of course promptly ignored Marx and begun discussing how they will bring about socialism, communism and better future here and now. To that end they decided to form International Workingmen's Association and begun discussing how to bring about the better future, promised to them by Marx, who refuted that as I mentioned before.

Marxists Split into Several Groups

As time went differences in opinions eventually led towards rifts in the association. First to be expelled were anarchists. The association voted to expel Guillaume and Bakunin because they claimed that if a Marxist party will come to power, its members would be as bad as the current ruling class. 

Guillaume, Bakunin and their supporters went to establish their own congress in St. Imier Congress. The St Imier congress did not last long, but rejected authoritarianism, promised mutual defense of its members and declared aspiration to create truly free economic system. 

Black International aka Anarchists

After the St. Imier Congress they continued as International Working People's Association or so called Black International. Later they will acquire label Anarchist. Nowadays Anarchism is often associated with chaos, however of all leftists and Marxists this group was by far the most freedom loving and sensible.

Members of Black International would continue to meet only occasionally, often to commemorate various key dates of their history. They use terms such as Syndicalism, Mutualism as well as other terms with Anarcho- prefix to describe themselves and their views.

In practice Black International could not come up with a policy that would satisfy its desire to free the working class from exploitation. They could see problems with the current system but at the same time they saw even more problems with every solution proposed by Marxists. In the end they opted to do nothing over the solution that in their opinion was worse than the problem it was meant to solve.

The rest soon went full throttle.

2nd International and How it Split

The rest of Marxist continued as 2nd (Socialist) International. For the most part they were more radical than the Anarchists, even more moderate among them such as Possibilists still claimed that revolution is their final aim. Unlike the "anarchists" from the rival organization, most members of second international supported strong state.

Just like the first international, the second one ended up splitting up, but that only happened during the WWI and Russian Revolution. 

The key difference here was nationalism vs internationalism. Certain members or second international went to support their nations in the Great War. 

Other instead denounced war and proclaimed that socialists should be opposed war and nations in general. Instead, they should topple their governments while they are busy fighting the war. They should aim to use this once in a lifetime opportunity to topple all government and establish worldwide communism.

The latter internationalist position eventually became Communist or Third International (Comintern). They succeeded in using war to topple Russian Imperial government and establish a revolutionary state in its place. A state where they could attempt to bring their ideas into reality.

The nationalist side at first divided into two rival organizations based on what side their country was during the WWI. The Axis members became International Working Union of Socialist Parties and Allied powers reunited into Berne International. However eventually they agree to merge into Labour and Socialist International

Socialist International After WWI, WWII and Nowadays

Nationalist Labour and Socialist International eventually became simply Socialist International. Once again war, this time WWII interrupted its existence, but it was re-founded afterwards. 

Overtime it became more and more moderate. Many current center-left parties that govern in Europe and other parts of the world are or were members of this Socialist International. Recently a Progressive Alliance have split from this organization due to dispute over governance and acceptance of undemocratic parties. 

Despite the split and some high-profile defections Socialist International continues and unites many left to center left parties across the globe.

Members and member parties use terms Progressive, Labour, Social Democrat, Democratic Socialism and sometimes simply Socialism to describe their ideology and their views.

Trotskyism Splits from Comintern

In contrast Communist International continued to splinter into many new groups. Most notably the 4th or Trotskyist International. 

Trotsky and his supporters disagreed with Stalin on many core issues. One was building socialism in one country, the USSR and instead believed in the original Comintern idea of a global communist revolution. They backed it with the pre-WWI theories that claimed that a single socialist state surrounded by capitalist world cannot function and will collapse. To solve this problem, they wished to overthrow every single capitalist government in every single country of the world and establish global communist.

Stalin did not disagree with them that global revolution should be ultimate goal but believed that socialism in one country has to be intermediate solution as they bide their time to make global revolution a reality.

The other point of contention was Trotskyist criticism of Soviet ruling class. Trotsky argued that revolution created so called new class that is as bad as the previous bourgeoisie ruling class that revolution overthrew. These views were voiced by the Anarchists before and later was also echoed by George Orwell's Animal Farm.

Here Stalin refused to compromise and expelled Trotsky from USSR and later assassinated him.

Comintern and Communism

The Stalin Trotsky split was echoed in the individual members as well as parties. Parties that supported Stalin and his version of communism, practiced in the USSR often adopted term communist for themselves. 

They however continued to use terms such as Socialist and Marxist. Many would hyphenate Marxism with Leninist to emphasize that it is a version of Marxism modified by Lenin and USSR's experience.

Many of such Marxist-Leninist parties were de facto satellites and puppets of USSR. At first USSR controlled them through Comintern and even run a special school to teach foreign communists how to overthrow their government. Many famous communists such as Mao Zedong were graduates of this institution.

Stalin abolished Comintern at request of his WWII Allies, but that was just a token measure and did not remove his ties with other Marxist-Leninist parties. After the WWII they run a Cominform, but eventually abolished that as well.

These relationships continued all the way to the dissolution of the USSR and in certain cases even afterwards. Even nowadays North Korea sends its soldiers to help Putin wage his war in Ukraine. However most communist parties across the globe felt lost and confused after USSR collapse. Many had to do a lot of soul searching to find their new ideology and role in the world. Some continued Soviet orthodoxy and others adopted some novel left-wing ideas.

Usage of term socialist by communist parties would confuse them with members of the Socialist International despite the huge differences between them. For communist term socialism somewhat echos Marx own usage, albeit in a distorted way. Here socialism is an intermediate state on social development between capitalism and communism. Capitalism is used to call the system that existed before communist party took over, socialism is used to describe the system they currently have, and communism is used to call a system they ultimately want to establish.

Trotskyism and 4th International

Trotskyists are both the most radical and the most ideologically purist group. Only after implementing Marxism in USSR did, they realize that Anarchists were right all along. 

Unlike Anarchists who understood impossibility of solving their problem, Trotskyists believed that corruption from within destroyed true socialism in USSR and it could work if done right.

Nowadays they are small fringe, but very active group. It is them who like to say that real socialism was never tried, and they sure would get it work this time around.

Members unite themselves into Fourth International that was dissolved at one point but then was re-founded.

4th International uses the most confusing terminology that overlaps with pretty much every other group. They do not try to distinguish themselves from other groups but rather try to monopolize all Marxist legacy as the only true to Marx group. Often, they simply call themselves Socialist, despite their views and policies being as far from Socialist International as one could be. Sometimes they use term Worker's and such. The only term they somewhat avoid is communist, to distinguish themselves from Comintern.

New Left, Green, Euro Communism and 5th International

As Socialist International was moving further and further center, there were some who were dissatisfied with this and came to believe that this was no longer left enough. At the same time, they did not want to be like USSR and their Marxist-Leninist communism. 

There movements and parties adopted variety of names and terms. Sometimes they would simply call themselves left. Other times they would use some completely different term altogether. Very often they call themselves Green or ally themselves with ecological movements who call themselves Green.

There groups are often oblivious of Trotskyists, so their relationships are nonexistent. However sometimes they could mix up with each other by accident or by desire to improve their electoral changes.

Their policies are typically social democratic but taken to the extreme. They simply want more redistribution than center-left willing to commit to. Unlike other groups they do not seek to change economic system, nor are they bothered with understanding any such complex matter. Instead, they rely on populism. 

Syriza and Podemos are examples of such parties.

Bookchin and American "Socialism"

Now we finally reached the craziest of them all, various American varieties of Socialism.

Unlike all other forms of Marxism and Socialism, American varieties did not split from any of the European organizations. Neither they are based on any theory from these organizations. Instead, American Socialism often based on American anti-Socialist propaganda mixed with each individual author own views. It was not created by working class people for their benefit but rather by some university intellectuals with some strange love for dystopian life and aesthetics.

Because of that pretty much all versions of American Socialism are ultimately grotesque and dystopian. 

Even the most dedicated supporter of USSR style communism would justify all problems with the system as mistakes or necessary evil. Drab look of Khruchevkas was due to desire to save time and money and build more hosing in short time to house as many people as possible. Disposing of business owners and nationalizing businesses was for the benefit of the people who work there. A private owner would make employees work as much as possible and pay them as little as possible to maximize his profits. Sure, business owner would lose his business, but it's a one-man loss over many people under his employ gain. 

The reason for executing or imprisoning former business owners was the fact that such people would want to return ownership over their business and therefore likely to support a conservative coup or foreign intervention from a country who is likely to restore them their former businesses. That would make former business owners extremists who seek destruction of the state and therefore a danger to society.

A government appointed, socially and politically reliable manager would instead prioritize fair treatment of workers and their wellbeing. When in practice these managers would manage Ukraine's Kolkhozes into starvation of millions, they would explain it with miscalculation from Moscow. People who set targets in 5-year plan thought these productivity targets were reasonable, but actual reality on the ground was different. Managers chose to follow their directives from Moscow and ignored problems on the ground before it was too late. 

At the very least they maintained their intention were best interest of working people. Optimist could believe they acted in good faith and their intention were benevolent. Cynic might say they are lying. Realist might point out that Anarchists predicted it will end up this way. Managers, dependent on goodwill of Moscow bosses will always prioritize pleasing them over the people on the ground who cannot fire them. 

A bad system was replaced with a system bad in a different way. However, it was a system made by working class people who never owned a business for the benefit of other people who never owned business just like them. All forms of socialism with exception of American maintain that.

In contrast American socialism often looks at worst examples of continental socialism as something to imitate. They do not want to make life of working class better. Far from it, they want to make everyone's life worse on purpose. They find some strange pleasure in drab socialist aesthetics and want to see it imposed on society on purpose.

Often such people are motivated by some moral conviction that justifies doing this. In one of my other articles, I connected them to puritans and their extreme religions. 

Regardless of where they are coming from. this is the most strange and dubious form of "socialism" out there. In most ways it is the opposite of any other form of Marxism out there. It's like LDS Mormon Church that calls itself Christian but not recognized as such by other Christians.

American varieties of "Socialism" are the most insane dystopian projects out there. I truly baffle me to think of people who would support it and why?

On Donald Trump

People tend to say a lot of things about Donald Trump, people call him fascist or authoritarian. Claim he would destroy democracy and liberties. Implement some loony Project 2025, drink blood of Christian babes and who knows what else.

I watched a few videos of him and came to a drastically different conclusion. Not only he is neither of the above, but he also hardly even right-wing. Most of his political positions and opinions are syncretic and opportunistic. He has no clear ideological bend and just supports variety of stuff popular with vastly different people on the net. On the other hand, he does not oppose anything that can actually jeopardize his popularity. For example, he vetoed any Republican repeal of Obamacare until it was watered down to just cancellation of universal mandate, after that he finally signed it and took credit for repealing Obamacare. He even consistently uses blue as his personal electoral color. 

One thing that works for Trump electorally is that he speaks in ambiguous ways to give people benefit of the doubt on what he actually means by that. That gives his detractors opportunity to make a mountain out of anthill. These however mostly backfire against Trump opponents as his supporters can cross check that with what he actually said and know that anti-Trump camp just blatantly lie, while actual extremists are more likely to vote Trump after hearing Dems accuse him of crazy stuff. Thus, a Teflon Donald continues to fly high in politics due to his careful wording of things that make vastly different people think he supports what they want.

Trump's success makes other radical right wingers like Tony Abbot think that they can do the same thing. However, they do not imitate the actual Trump but rather the slander, left wing makes up about him. Their political positions and polices are actually right wing and not syncretic like those of Trump. Because of that they will never be able to become a second Trump.

On American Elections

QLD recently had an election, but count have not finished yet so I will not comment on that for now.

Instead, I will talk about American election. Recently I watched debate between Trump and Harris as well as between their VPs. I have to say this is the worst debate and choice of candidates in probably the entire history of the US. Surely worst in the most recent history.

Debate between Harris and Trump are nothing more than a series of empty threats and accusations. It can be summed up in "He is literal devil. No, she it." Neither Trump nor Harris said much of their policies or program, but instead kept telling how much horrible things the other will do if they get elected. To a Trump credit, he would at least bother to refute in detail Kamala's accusations and tell his own version of the story. Kamala would just dismiss all he says as lies and will parrot her own narrative as much as she could.

Trump clearly devolved from how he was back in 2016 and even 2020. Back then he was sharp and smart, told things how they were, exposed many of the inconvenient truth and so on. The only issue with him was the conflict of interest: he promised to do things that would disadvantage him as a rich property developer, like banning illegal migrants that often work such jobs. Because of that you might question if he would really implement the promises that people want but would damage Trump Organization's business.

Still in 2016 Trump was a much better choice compared to Killary Clinton, who had no ideas of policies of her own, yet snubbed Bernie Sanders who actually had policies that would have made America better and so many people supported. The least she and Dems could do is to make Bern a VP candidate to unite the party. Instead, they kicked him to the side and cut a lot out of the student loan forgiveness program that they reluctantly took from Bern to placate his supporters. That was an insult too far that turned me from a Bern supporter into a Trump one.

In 2020 Trump was vain and complacent. He all forgotten about the independents that brought him to power and now pandered to core Republican base with low tax and conservatism. He correctly exposed many social issues in 2016 yet did nothing to address any of them while in office. You might at least expect him to make up some excuses on why it was not done, like Dems controlled the Congress and prevented him from acting, but he did not do either. 

Overall, however it was appropriate to give incumbent administration a boot for not doing anything for 4 years and simply vote for another guy. Fortunately, Biden was perfect for a such job. He is so plain, boring and inoffensive there is absolutely no reason to not vote for him. There is no reason to vote for Biden in particular either and against a better candidate he would not stand a chance, but here we had bad options.

Finally in 2024 we have 2 candidates that are so bad a body pillow or a potted plant would make a better president. Even a deliberate satire from 2008 looks more presidential than either Trump or Harris. See for yourself. After seeing Trump vs Harris, you do not even notice straightaway that it is an impersonation and a satire. Students who play Sarah Palin and Joe Biden certainly sound more presidential than current nominees. Trump and Harris not only make Sarah Palin a sensible choice, but they also even make a deliberate satirisation of her a sensible choice. Congratulations.

Afterwards I watched a debate between VPs. In contrast to presidential smear campaign, both JD Vance and Tim Walz sounded very respectable and civil. It was refreshing and pleasant for the first 30 minutes or so.

Eventually however issues emerged. Most importantly lack of policies. The only real policy issue they discussed and disagreed on was abortion. Here you could clearly see and choose between two diverging views on the issue.

Moderators asked VP candidates on housing issue that affect and concert many Americans, but candidates felt like they do not care. Tim Walz said something about his expertise of building housing in Minnesota. JD Vance about seizing federal land for housing projects. None of them of them gave any concrete numbers of how many new homes their administration will build during their tenue. It was pretty clear that neither of them cared for this very important for every Millennial issue.

So, what do I take from this 2024 election. Both candidates are so bad and useless, it makes voting 3rd party reasonable. Unfortunately, 3rd party candidates from Libertarians and Greens are useless too. Alas Andrew Yang is not running this time. I do not think he is recognized as Write In candidate either, but I think we should write in his name anyway. He is the only guy is this madhouse who cares for things that matter and has a plan. Vote Andrew Yang.

The election seems more of a culture war. In that case Trump who gives middle finger to this bullshit makes a lot more sense than Harris who peddles it. Still, write in Andrew Yang, he is the only one who makes sence.

On LDPR and Zhirinovsky

A lot of people in the West and some in Russia think that LDPR and Zhirinovsky are radical nationalists. Sure, some of their statements can be interpreted this way.

However, if you think about it, most of their statements are too absurd to be taken seriously. In practice LDPR is a lot closer to Official Monster Raving Looney Party than initially apparent.

Of course, LDPR is not as much of an obvious satire as the Loonies so not everyone gets it as a joke. It's a 100-layer irony. Zhirinovsky treads a somewhat fine line between the Loonies and people like Trump, Pauline Hanson and Nick Xenophon.

Of course, now that Zhirinovsky is dead, the party will likely devolve into a simple government spoiler party.

Originally it was set up by KGB in waning days of USSR as a back-up government party. Because of that there is a lot of KGB and FSB personnel in it. 

That is also a reason why this party does not live to its name. From the start government wanted this party to steal votes of liberal and democratic opponents of the system from truly oppositional parties. Now that LDPR's game is up, it is up to the other quasi-independent parties like A Fair Russia to do it.

Regardless of its past and origins, it is probably the most successful satire party that ever existed. 

Kakistocracy Problem in Modern Employment and Society

 

There is a joke in Russia: 

A professor examines a student and increasingly does not like what the student telling him. Eventually he interrupts the student and asks him a question. They say exam is a dialogue between two smart people. What happens if one of them is an idiot. Then the other one will fail the exam, replies the student.

Professor did assume that he is the smart one. However, the student was of different opinion.

However, the situation in a joke happens in real life all too often. If a person encounters something smarter than their own intellectual capacity allows them to comprehend, they often dismiss it as stupid.

If such stupid people are in authority and charged with making decisions, they will be unable to tell a smart person from a stupid one. If such a person works in HR for example, they will miss on real talents in favor of hacks and so on.

Because of that there are a lot of smart people who are unable to get ahead in life simply because people in authority are too stupid to understand their genius.

That is detrimental to a broader society as well. Stupid people, selected by equally stupid HR or managers, would not be able to come up with good solutions and deliver the best possible outcomes for businesses or society.

Thus, a kakistocracy only recreates itself if left to its own devices. 

Society in theory champions meritocracy. However, is it able to actually achieve it in practice. If people making decisions are not smart enough, then meritocracy de facto devolves into kakistocracy. 

Most people who work in HR do not possess any special education and skills. Yet they serve as gatekeepers to employment for many people. This situation leads to reality of modern kakistocracy.

In addition to kakistocracy there could also be a simple bias where HR people simply select people, they like for roles these people unable to fulfill based on subjective personal likes and dislikes. They in turn would simply turn down people they dislike, no matter how qualified they are.

To solve this problem, companies have to rely on more objective methods of selecting and recruiting candidates. Modern technology can easily allow to test applicants' aptitude and ability to perform certain tasks. Such tests would allow people to hire based on merit instead of subjective opinion of an unqualified HR personnel.

This is particularly important in technical, engineering and scientific spheres where lack of knowledge makes person completely useless. It is useful in management, logistics and many other fields as well. 

Sure, some fields such as marketing rely on a lot on ability to appeal to subjective feelings. However, with some originality you can test abilities to make a compelling ad campaign as well.

In our current society meritocracy is under threat of creeping invisible kakistocracy of unqualified HR personnel. We need changes to restore meritocracy and hire to positions of authority people who truly deserve it.

Simple Example of the Reasons Why Wars Happen

Many people like to think and say that wars are senseless and pointless. That waging them is stupidity.

Reality cannot be further away. Wars happen over land and other valuable resoures. There is one episode of Tom and Jerry that illustrates just this question.

Here dog, cat and mouse agreed on peace. At first, they worked together took care of each other and help each other against enemies. 

However, things changed when they got their hands on a big piece of meat. At first, they tried to divide meat fairly, but soon found out that their idea on what would be fair distribution of mean greatly differ from each other. Then when the dog decided to just divide based on his own measures, unsatisfied cat, who only got a piece of bone, stuck a fork into the dog's paw. After that they tried to steal meat from each other, until their infighting led towards losing it altogether. Despite meat being gone, they blamed each other for that and continue fighting afterwards.

It just like it happens in real life. Just instead of meat they divide land and resources. For example, before WWII they wrote various treaties to divide spheres of influence, limit weapons production and so on. Then shortly before the beginning of the war they even had a conference on the fate of parts of Czechoslovakia. Chamberlain even returned with the "peace of our time" agreement. However it all fail Hitler decided to grab the big piece, France and UK were not willing to concede and the war begun.

Just like in cartoon 6 years into war few even remember how the war even begun. After its ended, US and UK almost went to war with USSR over disagreements over the future of Germany.

Here is the map of division of Europe, if Germany would have won the WWII. On this map Germany is twice the size of what it is now. Many other countries have different borders as well, giving a stake in favor or against this division. For example, Croatia is twice as large and Serbia twice as small.

Finally, after the war winners write history and describe themselves in fancy epithets like valiant knights and losers as warmongers and beasts. If Germany would have won, we would learn how Germans valiantly defeated and then Germanized violent, aggressive and barbaric Poles to make them more peaceful and civilized. Just something to think over.

How Type of Accommodation You Live in Affects Mentality

 

People who own their own detached home with a plot of land tend to vote conservative. One reason for that is that they are more well off than those who live elsewhere. However, there is more to it than just that. 

A house with a plot of land is a microcosm of conservative individual responsibility reality. This reality leads to conservative mindset of those who live like that.

Reality of living in a home is fundamentally conservative. Why? Because you have entire home entirely for yourself and have great deal of control over it. It's your home, it's your lawn, stuff in your home and on your lawn is also yours. Your lawn has a fixed size and have a fence around it to divide it from your neighbors' lawn. You do whatever you want on your plot, your neighbor on his. Simple.

This mindset created by this homeownership reality is then applied to other things. For homeowners it's only natural that business owners should run their business as they see fit. Foreign countries should run their societies as they see fit. And so on. Various arguments on why this or that is not fair simply crash against this this ironclad logic of my vs others territory. 

People like this do not like "big government" interfering with their homes for this simple my territory reason. Of course, reality is that electricity, water and other utilities are provided by the government or big companies out there. Without these things life in such a detached home would be nigh impossible. However, these things are invisible, so homeowners underestimate the government's irreplaceable role in what they have.

In contrast to that there is an apartment block. In apartment blocks everyone is more visibly connected to the system. Sure, you still have your own space, you can lock with the key. However, place has common lawn if any, common entrance, stairs, lifts and so on. If any of that is in poor shape or repair, it affects everyone.

However, apartment block is not your house where you can fix it yourself. Fixing lifts for example needs technical knowledge. You have to report broken lift to someone and hope they will fix it. Same with lawns and other public spaces. Shaping lawn to your liking or corridor is pointless as others are free to use it as they see fit. All you have is just the apartment, the rest is under common control.

In apartment block it's as clear as day that there are a lot of things beyond your control. However, if they are beyond your control, then who should control them. Most will think that it's unfair that some managers or owners would run it as they see fit. Instead, they would think that everyone who lives there should have a say in building's management.

This produces a more collectivist left wing mindset. You do not think that building managers should be free to run their apartment as they see fit like a homeowner would. Instead, you think that building management should answer to and be accountable to the people who live in the apartment block.

Just as you think that about your apartment block, you also think this way of other things such as government and business. After all both government and business do things that affect everyone. Because of that they should be accountable to everyone.

Homeownership produces individual responsibility as well. After all your lawn and your home is as good as much care you put in it. If you mow the lawn, its clean and pleasant. If you do not, its overgrown and messy. You have what you do, work hard and get result or do nothing and get nothing. Reality of homeownership makes this principle true.

However, it does not work this way in the apartment block. Your lift and stairs are shitty because you drank neighbor peed in there when he was drunk and vomited there as well. Even if you clean it yourself, he will just do it again next weekend. Not to mention why you should clean something that is not yours and that everyone else uses as well. A reality of powerlessness. You can only hope or petition that building management will do something about it. By extension this reality produces a mentality of expectations from the government. After all, just like only building management can fix lifts, only government can fix the country.

In this dichotomy renting fundamentally works even worse than apartment block. Even if you rent an entire house for yourself, if not your house and you have not vested interest in improving it or even keeping it in good repair. Landlords still control what you can or cannot do with their property. Its maybe a house, but it's not your house. 

In a way it's even more powerless than owning an apartment as in apartment block there is at least a space you actually own.

Renting produce transience and indifference as you will be elsewhere in short time and what happens here does not matter. Grab something good, while you can, use it and move on. It makes you think in short term benefits as short term is all you have.

In contrast homeownership makes you think long term. Every improvement you make to your home are there to stay for good after all.

There are also hotels and caravans, but I will not analyze these, at least not now.

Some might say that you choose where you live. However, if your neighborhood looks like that, there is not that much choice there.

As our population increases, more and more people will live in apartment blocks and not in detached homes with plot of land. Our governance and mindset should also adapt to this reality. 

Politicians too should increasingly live in apartment blocks to better understand this reality. It's not enough to simply live in the neighborhood, they should live like majority lives.

Why Putin's Russia Must Be Defeated

Russia is mafia run kleptocracy, run by people with more than 5000 murders on their hands. They routinely use slave labor and will sell your organs on black market if you give them a chance.

Ukraine is aspiring democracy that is on its way to be as nice of a place to live in as any European Union member state.

I think it's pretty clear who is the good guy here.

A country that does such cruelties to its conscripted soldiers is a true evil incarnate and must be destroyed. After that Russia has to be reformed and transformed. All dedovshina must be removed, military conscription forbidden in constitution. Other spheres of life such as military, police, public service and education also has to be reformed. No one who worked in military, police or public service under Putin should be allowed to do so in new Russia. Country should be transformed as much as Germany was denazified after WWII.

On Aircons

In the last 50 or so years Aircons became a near universal appliance in the hot countries. Nearly everyone uses them nowadays to beat the heat. This near universal adoption however led to a rather peculiar and hard to notice problem.

Most appliances generate heat when they are working. Anything from laptops to car engines produce heat. Aircons are no exception, to make room cold an even greater among of heat must be produced. Of course, clever engineers designed aircons to disperse this heat outside: that while unit with fan is what responsible for dumping excess heat into the air. The uniqueness of aircons make this heat a problem

When it was designed no one thought the excess heat would be problem. The reasoning here was that rooms are small and outside is vast. Because of that that excess heat will not make a difference, much like a grain of sugar will just melt in a teacup and the taste will not change in any noticeable way. 

However, people kept buying and running aircons more and more, so now we have countless aircons running at the same time, all dumping their exhausted heat into the air. In our current quantities this heat makes a difference and makes temperatures outside much hotter than they would be without aircons. To make matters worse the exhaust air is stuffy, and it makes it even more unbearable than normal air.

In suburban areas where density is not that high is not that noticeable. However, in CBD with its Highrise buildings it does make a difference. When I used to live in suburbs, I could do all summer without aircon. In CBD however aircon became a necessity. That is because of population density and everyone running aircons at the same time.

So, what we can do to fic the problem. Sure, just banning aircons would be too radical of a move. That will not solve problem of heat from other sources either.

However, a more comport friendly solution is possible. Aircon heat can be removed from residential areas using pipes, like how sewage is removed. Air does not have to go too far as its not toxic as sewage, just nearby part will do. That is of course a lot of work, but new areas and high-rise buildings can be design with that in mind.

Something simpler is another solution. High rise buildings should be mandated to have a centralized cooling system instead of everyone using individual units, the exhaust should be placed on the roof to prevent exhaust heat from affecting temperatures on street levels. Since exhaust air is hotter than normal air it will not fall to the street level.

These two solutions can make cities much more livable than before and make everyone much happier.