Private vs public interest: the balance

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Greetings, my Lenin followers worshipers of freedom-dom & democracy-cy! An ongoing case here at the ass of the Balkans (which in turn is the ass of Europe) is causing a lot of discussions on the subject of private and public interests and their role in the state affairs. Is a sensible equilibrium even possible between them? And what's needed to maintain it? Not an easy question.

I don't watch much TV, but when I occasionally do, I always somehow happen to come across some weird folks fuming over political issues for hours and hours on. So a few days ago I saw this TV political talk-show host, with his greased hair and predatory look in the eyes, wanking all over his interlocutor who looked rather shy but intelligent well over the average level you might expect to see on such a show. The question was, "Aren't we returning to communism these days, now that the state has proposed to buy off the failed non-ferrous metal processing plant in the underdeveloped region of Kardzhali?" The other guy just gave the host an odd look, which prompted Mr Greasyhair to go on with his rant, "Is it commie times all over again? We're returning to September 9, 1944, right? We're effectively sliding back down with all this nationalization! Do you have anything to say on that, Sir?"

Frankly, I would've just stared at him and maybe burst into hysterical laughter, or something. Or just say, "Cheers, mate! To communism!" But the other guy obviously had nerves of steel, and quite some spare time on his hands, so he started to calmly explain that similar measures are often taken in some of the most developed democracies in the West, including in America and the "more normal" EU member states, and this isn't the same thing as the nationalization of entire sectors (like in Russia), but rather an effort to find a sensible balance between private and public interests, and obtain a structure of the economy that might actually work better. Of course the host would have none of it, and he interrupted the guy so many times that the latter just gave up eventually.

The thing is, there are still plenty of seniors around who've lived both through Sep 9, 1944 (the coming of communism here) and Nov 10, 1989 (the "explosion of Democracy"). They've seen both extremes and all the consequences that come from them. In one extreme, a total domination over property was granted to the state. On a personal level, my great-grandpa disappeared into one of the communist camps after his small safety-box producing workshop was seized and he was detained by the new government, just for being a "bourgeois".

For the first 11 years of my life I saw enough of what living under state totalitarianism was like. The state was everywhere, it occupied even people's last personal refuges, it invaded their private homes, their thoughts and the way they lived their lives. The state was literally unceremonious. The pub that a neighbor of ours had in my grandmother's village was just a small one-storey house, a very modest thing really. It was seized with no warning and no questions, and turned into a shoemaker's shop, and given to a guy who had been friends with the "partizani" (the commie resistance during WW2, part of which my other grandpa had been, by the way - a weird combination in my family indeed). So, the neighbor who had a pub on the previous day, next day turns up stripped of his property and declared an enemy of the state, and he had to report to the "Militsia" (police) station regularly for years. And some stranger was now sitting in his former pub, working as a shoemaker. Paying no rent, having a tax break. No questions asked, none answered. The government had just chosen that place and appropriated it, period.

And this is just one of millions of examples of what had happened after Sep 9, 1944. So, is the comparison between all the above -and- the state proposing to buy off a failed enterprise, anywhere near accurate? And what about the "we're back to communism now!!11" hysterics? In order to understand that, we have to look at what happened AFTER democracy exploded here in 1989, or what we call the Transition Period (some are still saying it hasn't ended yet).

After November 10, 1989, the private interest not just took precedence, it turned into obsession, under whose weight the last droplets of common sense disappeared from the head of the last remaining reasonable statesman. A fake sense was created that if the last remaining hectare of state-owned land was given to private hands, that would somehow be the ultimate recipe for a rapid growth and instantaneous enrichment of the population (or as we call it, "fixing the country"). It all happened in a frantic rush, amidst a huge chaos, and everyone and anyone was grabbing whatever they could snatch. Those were turbulent times, the epoch of the "Mutri" (literally: "mugs"; meaning: thugs), the Al Capone style. Many said we were living through the 1920s in the US. Hyperinflation, long queues in front of the bakery, pensioners gripping their last coupons and hoping to have some soup poured into their tin cans.

 VS 

Meanwhile, the "democratic" governments were very busy, creating all sorts of "liquidation commitees" with the task to denationalize everything and sell it to the highest bidder (or rather, the guy with the biggest baseball bat). The liquidation committees became the symbol of ruin, the restitution law was applied very selectively, and the state became a departing evil step-mother for most, and a father-protector for some few. The Bulgarian people were completely unprepared for this total dismantling of their society - neither emotionally nor economically, least of all culturally. They didn't know what to do with their newly acquired "freedom", how to cope with the responsibilities of private property, and how to handle the appearing cracks between the emerging classes, and the huge gaps that were opening between various groups, and the staggering inequalities. You could see a donkey-pulled cart next to an S-class Bentley at the same traffic lights; you could see huts made of clay bricks nestled in the shadow of pompous super-palaces belonging to the parvenus of the day ("Never ask me about my first million, okay?") The latter architectural style was eventually called Mutro-Barok (Thug-o-Baroque).

 VS 

The only function the state saw about itself was to retreat. It surrendered from its task to look after the public interest, but they went even further: they created and developed a business out of the re-distribution of property. For a decade or more after the beginning of the Transition Period, it seemed the only law of the land was the law of the jungle, and the greedy pillaging of everything and anything that had any value.

Literally in front of the bewildered eyes of my whole neighborhood, the backyard of the local kindergarten was sold off to a private "investor" who built a super-mastodon of an office building in its place, which hosted the new "businessmen" of the day (read: neo-thugs). The community library was also put on the list of places to be knocked down, and I remember my parents and other folks from the neighborhood running from one bureaucrat to another and filing petitions against the decision, forming community committees in an attempt to save the last place where their kids (i.e. me and my peers) could go read a book. But that effort was doomed to failure right from the start. The kids' playgrounds around the neighborhood started disappearing one after another, the mayor had signed some papers and allowed some new millionaires to build residential buildings there. Now we have just one playground corner within 2 km. Even the public sports arena in front of my block was knocked down and turned into a construction site (the company that started building went kaput a little bit, so the place remains unfinished and looks like a mine field, but yeah; we still don't have a place to play soccer or volleyball, unless we'd like to visit some private sports hall and pay 40 bucks per hour, how about that).

Some God-anointed "entrepreneurs" sent the diggers invading the older neighborhoods and villages, knocking down the brick houses of the pensioners and raising "kooperatsii" - the name is particularly ironic, since during commie times that was meant to indicate that a number of families had gathered their resources together to build a small residential block; but now there was nothing "cooperational" in these enterprises any more. Even some of the most emblematic buildings in town and symbols of our national culture weren't spared. The brightest example is the museum-house of Peyo Yavorov, one of our legendary writers and one of all those national heroes we claim to worship while neglecting their memory. The silent dismantling of the public property happened in muddy waters, with payments under the table, and faked bidding contests where "our guys" always won. That's how the biggest corporations were created, and they dominate the landscape now, being chaired by guys who've substituted the black sports outfit and the white fake Puma sneakers and woolen socks with a suit and a tie. Including the one where I'm employed. Multiple octopuses are casting their shade over the whole economy, usually carrying the word "Group" as part of their name (because it sounds so posh and intimidating, okay?)

Many of those newly built conglomerates have now crawled out of the grey economy, successfully laundering much of their money through building enormous properties on the seaside resorts. The place I work at, Sunny Beach has become the capital city of debauchery, the "concrete jungle" by the seaside, a former paradise now chopped into tiny plots of land and sold to whoever had the cash. Regardless of the origin of said cash. Money doesn't smell, after all. But it didn't work so well for all former state properties - after a series of restitutions and changes of ownership (from a garbage-collecting firm to a Masonic lodge), the museum-house of Yavorov is now in a wretched state, about to fall apart on the heads of the passers-by. That building has become the symbol of degradation due to reckless privatization, a stark reminder of the total neglect and spiritual banditism that has ravaged this society ever since "freedom" arrived like a tsunami. People have asked, would it be nationalization and communism if the state tries to buy that museum back?

 VS 

And these are all just examples that represent crumbs of the pie, the visible tip of the iceberg. The REAL pie is much, much bigger, and much tastier. And it was being chopped to small pieces and sold out, too. To whom, how, and when it was sold for coins - we'll hardly ever learn the details. We know big pieces of the truth, but of course there's no proof. And even if there were, not that anyone would've moved a finger to do anything about it. It's a done deal already. We're talking of huge enterprises here, and even entire sectors of the economy, which, as of today, are on their knees, sold off, outsourced, moved to neighboring countries from which now we have to buy the very products we used to be so famous for. The Bulgarian fruits and vegetables, the rose oil, even electricity. Now we hardly produce anything useful, save for tobacco and alcohol. Now we have to buy tomatoes from Turkey and cucumbers from Hungary, and oil from Romania, and gas from Russia, and cheese from Greece, and clothes from China. What a shame. Bulgaria has become the example of how transition from communism to capitalism should NOT be done. Something like an experiment, to serve the historians of the future. And we're the mice in the lab. In fact there's such a song, Nine Million Mice. Except we're now 7 million, because many have fled.

And, since nothing of substance is being produced, in this case does the state have the right to interfere and control the large privatization and re-privatization deals of the big entrepreneurs who are otherwise unable to look after their enterprises properly? Like the biggest steel-processing factory on the Balkans, the one in Kremikovtzi, which for a long time was the biggest black-hole in the national budget. Well, both the answers YES or NO sound too extreme. Because each case is specific and it screams for a specific solution. As in the case with the non-ferrous metals processing plant in Kardzhali, where hundreds of workers and their families are doomed to life in misery and lack of any perspectives because of sloppy management by the private owner. A thing we're supposed to be used to seeing mostly in state enterprises, but is totally possible in private ones as well, as it turns out. And that region doesn't produce anything but tobacco, so if you shut down this enterprise, you're condemning the local people to a Stone Age existence. And because they're of an ethnic and religious minority (Muslim Turks), in such conditions there's a real risk of a Kosovo scenario in the long run. People tend to get all sorts of crazy ideas in their heads when they're desperate. But it'd be "communism" and "stomping on the freedom of the free market" if the state does something in an attempt to prevent all that, wouldn't it? It's a matter of principle - and principles are more important than people's destinies. Right?

The state should've never thrown its hands in the air and walked out of the room in the first place. The state shouldn't be just a sack with some holes in it, where you keep throwing tax money, and where the guys who are calling the shots can reach into and pull bank notes whenever they fucking like. Its intervention is compulsory for obtaining a sensible equilibrium between private and public interest, but not in the way it did during the last 20 years. Otherwise we'll never escape the sight of the ugly, dirty concrete jungles in our cities, with the kitsch Chalga-music nightclubs and casinos in the middle, or the sight of the devastated little towns and villages that look as if there's been a WW2 bombardment a week ago, as is the case with Vidin - a previously prosperous town on the river Danube, now turned into the poorest region in the poorest corner anywhere in the European Union. The place where a bridge was supposed to exist across the river, connecting us to the rest of Europe - but it was never finished.

 VS 

As it stands, still more time and sacrifices will be necessary to achieve this equilibrium, if possible at all. And a fundamental (but this time GRADUAL!) change in the mentality of people. However I'm not sure people have the patience and inspiration to go through yet another "transition" like that. Or I don't know. It could happen naturally, despite ourselves and despite the state that's been more like an evil stepmother.

Either way, generations will have to pass for that to happen. Not a sudden "democratic" coup substituting the totalitarian regime where the old faces just rename themselves and become new faces overnight, like with a magic wand. Not the emergence of yet another, desired or undesired "strongman / Savior of the nation" like the current one who rode on the wave of people's hopes and desperation, and who came with the promise to save us from ourselves and "fix the country", whatever that's supposed to mean. The previous one even gave an exact deadline for that task: 800 days, no more no less - and of course that promise fell flat on its ass.

And, in any case, as much as we're similar to the Greeks who like talking and talking about problems over a horiatiki shopska salad and a souvlaki shish-kebab with a tzatziki sauce yogurt and a glass of ouzo mastika (or tripe soup if you like), complaining and complaining endlessly, without moving a finger to amend them... honestly discussing these things wouldn't hurt - BUT rolling up the sleeves and actually working in the right direction is what would bring the real results.

Comments

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

I bet the politicians in your country are scaring people with the Greek bogeyman: "Tighten the belts some more and watch out, or else we'll become like Greece!"

Which is ironic, since I'm sure for a long time the Greeks had been saying the same about you guys.

Turns out Bulgaria became more "capitalist" than Greece, which became more "communist" than anybody in Europe. Something like the chronic commie of the EU.

Also, cool story comrade!

[peamasii.livejournal.com]

The lack of export marketing in Bulgaria and in the Balkans is showing in all sorts of unpleasant ways, which could have been prevented by a smart and pragmatic leadership over the last 20 years, while they were too busy building villas like the one above (neo-oriental via gypsy culture) and ordering luxury automobiles to be bothered. Look at the supermarkets in the Balkans, you'll see more imported vegetables from Chile, Spain, Israel than local products. The open markets in every town, where you could previously buy delicious natural products cheaper, have often been harassed by EU laws and property disputes as well as regulators and commercial interests. Instead of stimulating the economies in the areas which were traditionally strong (like agriculture, small producers, family businesses) the postcommunist governments have opted to focus on bringing in the foreign importers who could swamp the local markets with all sorts of more expensive and less necessary goods. Now they are faced with imposing austerity on an impoverishing older population and a meager future for the young generation.

Instead what should have been done is to exploit the excellent food and drink products and guarantee them european distribution. The unique and traditional areas of these countries could have been preserved and renewed in cultural tourism, but no such thing was attempted in any scale. It was only by chance that Prince Charles found and invested in preserving a small area of medieval importance in Transylvania (Viscri), for example. But nearby you will find the gypsy settlements with their handmade roofs on which they install satellite dishes for their flatscreens. They roll in the dirt, no running water, but are watching kitschy music videos via satellite. That's the penetration of technology and free markets in rural balkans!

Tourism for sports and entertainment could have been promoted... our countries have rich, varied nature and historical resorts, not yet as built out as Turkey, but unique in many other ways. Historical castles, villas and natural monuments are only now beginning to be seen, and not by many. There is almost no western advertising for relaxation tourism east of Croatia (which itself is a wonder of planning and re-development that the balkans would do well to emulate). The few English and German who have dared to spend their vacations in Bulgaria (and conversely the Italians and Germans in Romania) are all sold recurring clients, and yet they are a small percentage of european tourism. If you ask any north-westerner about vacationing in Europe, you get the same answers: Spain, Turkey, south France... while in the balkans you can have everything from mountains to the sea and almost no one has heard of the possibility.

As for privatisations, they were done arbitrarily and to the first bidder. While sometimes this meant getting hundreds of millions for bankrupt steel factories, other times it meant selling out oil companies at 1/4th the price because no other bids were allowed by the government. The companies that were required for daily life, like the railroads, were kept on at running huge losses. Overall you see these examples of governing without the public interest in mind. Who elected these people? Oh wait, the poor, the uneducated, the sick, the resenting seniors, the hopeless youth, they all did. Now we can start counting the time it will take to undo the damage done since the curtain fell.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Now that you've mentioned the harassment by EU laws, this reminds me of the latest crazy idea: "eggs produced by happy chickens". It's a new set of standards which has blown the egg prices right through the roof.

There's this conspiracy theory that the EU doesn't really want to have a competitor in the Balkans, especially in the areas where the Balkans are traditionally strong - like you mentioned, agricultural production and the likes. And our governments have been more than helpful in erasing those exact industries from our portfolio, and welcoming the foreign products in their stead. And now we're bearing the consequences of all that.

It's curious that during the property boom, the British who are always the bravest investors who can sniff a good bargain, fell for the fairy tale of our nice beaches and were buying properties en masse, even before said properties had been even built (we call this "purchasing on-green", from a picture on a paper). They were expecting that, because this market is still underdeveloped and a terra incognita, they'd take the risk and then pick large profits. But then, a combination of a world crisis (an external factor) + mismanagement of these resorts (which is our fault) resulted in a stagnation on that market, too. And I don't think they'll be so brave in investing here in the future.

The problem with electing shitty politicians is that they're all like that: shitty. A decent politician who has the public's interest as their top priority is a rarity around these latitudes. But then again, politicians come from these same people ("Every society deserves exactly the politicians it gets"). There's this meme here that people enter politics in order to fill their pockets; public interest could eventually come only after that - maybe. And that's what makes people pessimistic that undoing the damage will take a while.

[kayjayuu.livejournal.com]

Thank you for sharing this so openly and fairly. What a sad tale of the human condition, especially when it comes to immediacy: 1944, the State immediately (relative) took things over and the worst of the State was apparent and reigned. In 1989, the State immediately ran away and the vacuum was filled by the worst of the private sector -- in my mind, type-A criminal wolves who fed on the sheep surrounding them.

How was your economy and government structured pre-Communism? I plead ignorance and apologize. :( If more State intervention by small degrees would have been introduced back then, instead of the iron rule of totalitarianism using fear, power, and the use of complete force, what would have been the reaction of the people, do you think?

From the outside looking in, it seems to me that the people there were entirely cowed, at best, by the regime they had to live under for 45 years, so that when the other extreme showed up the upcoming generations -- the ones who become the power structure over time, 20's to 50's -- had no clue how to resist the thugs that jumped at the chance. They didn't even imagine it was allowed, or that it could go so wrong. "Freedom" is a concept that requires an inner restraint, and that restraint takes time to cultivate. While it feels so wrong to say "it's only been 23 years," that's only long enough for one generation to go from cradle to the cusp of making decisions in the positions of authority. My same-age son has a different worldview than I do simply by virtue of developing during a different timeframe, with different resources and goals than I had/have, and he's just now entering the adult world where he can quite possibly make a difference. Seeing the fruits of that difference will take yet another generation.

The difference between what happened 70 years ago and what is happening now? There can be open ranting and calm debate about what's wrong with the power structure in place. Neither the TV host nor his professorial guest have to fear being "disappeared". There's hope that with a few years between they may even start listening to each other.

[peamasii.livejournal.com]

That's pretty much how it is. Pre-communism we had authoritarian states (monarchies until WWI in Bulgaria, until WWII in Romania) which at least tried to protect the national resources and interests. There was little democracy politically but the oligarchies had international ties and the economies were not doing badly, primarily because of rural agriculture and lots of national resources. Tradition ensured some level of work ethic and we benefitted from transit commerce. If the implantation of communism had been attempted slowly, people who would have resisted it succesfully, because it exercised power from the top down and it had to enlist the power of the lower class. Instead it was done brutally in the hope that it would make a clean break with the past. however this meant strong isolationism within the bloc, in five decades they destroyed the economies, the infrastructure and uniqueness of the places. The postcommunist state then failed to recognize the accumulated effect of the lack of democracy, instead choosing to redistribute what was left, and this was masked economically by an influx of western capital as long as that lasted. Now facing the reality is harsh, although one could see it coming much earlier on.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Thanks for these thoughts. That's the problem with immediacy, yes. Nothing can happen just like that, overnight. On Tuesday we're in communism, on Wednesday we're in capitalism. No way, magic wands don't exist.

The economy was pretty strong pre-communism, even after defeats in WW1 and the Balkan Wars, i.e. two national catastrophes. We still recovered amazingly fast and did something like a mini- economic miracle, mostly because we were a vibrant, enthusiastic and industrious people. Communism changed all that, it made us lazy, complacent and apathetic.

Yugoslavia used a curious form of socialism under Tito, something that was somewhere between capitalism and communism, or "communism with a human face" if you like. Perhaps that formula could've been more useful for us, but I'm afraid the geopolitical circumstances didn't allow us to remain so detached from the Soviet sphere of influence like Yugoslavia was, and we HAD to impose totalitarianism because we had no other option at the time. And once the regime cast its roots, there was no turning back from that - until Gorbachev "ordered" the perestroika.

But still ours was nothing like Ceausescu's Romania, or Albania to that matter. We had a fairly mild form of communism. Freedom of speech was suppressed, sure, but there were tons of political anecdotes spoken with half a mouth around dinner tables, and the state was pretending it wasn't hearing them. It's just that our dictator Todor Zhivkov was so fucking stupid that even his clique was making fun of him; he knew that, and he didn't mind. He was a stupid, yet very industrious man who proved a big player and survived for 3 decades in power. And you can't do that unless you have a talent. ;-)

As for Serbia, ironically it's still seen as Russia's biggest ally in the region. I guess it was exactly because they had an opinion of their own, and their own model that they defended at any cost, even despite the constant pressure from the Great Powers of the day, that they deserve so much respect, while we don't. They've always been more stubborn than us, in the good sense of the word.

The modern thugs themselves, or the majority of them, were former commie buddies btw, or the sons of top commie officials - they weren't just some random thugs from the street. So the old power structures have very much remained in place, they only transformed, changed name and experienced a face-lift. Look at our current prime minister Boyko Borisov - he was the personal bodyguard of our communist dictator Todor Zhivkov. Similarly to his mentor, he's not very bright, but he's an opportunist, a populist, extremely charismatic, and has had the luck to be at the right place at the right time. Namely: when people got desperate and the sentiment started re-gaining power: "We need a strong hand again to rule us all and fix us". And here he is, "fixing" us now. We asked for him - we got him. We deserve what we get.

But despite all this, I share your opinion that the newer generations will know different. If not for any other reason, simply because they live in these modern times, not in the past. The young people of today haven't lived a day under communism, or the Thug Years. Granted, there are still remnants of those times all around, the legacy of the muddy ages hasn't completely disappeared, and the effects on people's mentality are everywhere to be seen. But still there's place for optimism, simply for the fact that time heals all wounds, even if very very slowly. I think the EU entry has been by far the most decisive step we've taken for the last 20 years, and it was a step in the right direction, despite all the flaws of the Union.

On the other hand, there's this joke here that the Europeans might not civilize us, instead we'll Balkanize them. The first signs of that are already being noticed. ;-)

[nairiporter.livejournal.com]

I was missing those posts of yours...

The picture looks bleak. But it could have been much worse. Some undeniably positive changes have happened, and some right decisions have been taken in the last years for your country. Like joining NATO, EU and opening up to the global economy. This carries risks of course, but the alternative is... Moldova?

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

The non-greasy guy was right. Mixed economies have a greater potential to be sustainable in the long run than either extremity.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

Its good to have lots of tools in your box for dealing with lots of events.

[mikeyxw.livejournal.com]

Mixed economies are good, but that doesn't mean the government should be buying failed companies, especially ones without any kind of track record showing they could be successful. Nationalization of a company or two doesn't mean you're returning to communism, but it's not something I expect most Bulgarian citizens have an expectation that their government will do well.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

The non-ferrous processing plant in Kardzhali has been anything but unsuccessful for the last 30 years. I mean before it was privatized.

[mikeyxw.livejournal.com]

Do you expect the government will run the place well when they take it over? I'm not being smug, I really don't know if the plant is a gold-mine that someone's nephew ran into the ground that the Bulgarian taxpayers are thrilled to have back in the government's hands. It just seems to have the potential to be the next black hole in the government's budget... which I see as the best argument against nationalizing firms that are going under.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

I don't expect anything good from MY government, not because it's a government but because it's Bulgarian. Long story.

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

Many have fled, and that's understandable. But YOU haven't. And that means something.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

So I take it you liked my post in response to zebra about the hyper-capitalism.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

This one: http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1416747.html?thread=113156395#t113156395

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Pretty much, with a nitpick:

> so now you have a bunch of for-profit models in place in the 1990s but few pieces of legislation in place to prevent exploitation, fraud, protecting the rights of worker, and whatnot

There *is* awesome legislation to prevent all that. It's just that it's not implemented. There are always ways around it.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

You can have all the laws you want but it doesn't matter if they're not enforced.

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

Bottom line: balance is preferable to the extreme. Great story again.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

I think it's improper to think of it as a balance. A balance implies a shifting standard that changes based upon circumstances. Too much variability with that and far too much personal belief.

The question should be "what is allowed/what isn't allowed" as well as "what must be done/what must not be done" and it should be based upon "why".

Every generation tries to balance out an issue that they deal with only to find they've completely imbalanced it for the next generation. We see it in America dealing with social issues like education.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

So what's the solution? What *should* be done?

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

Your description of gangster capitalism in Bulgaria brings back memories. When I lived in Hoboken, NJ, there was a fire in the apartment building next door to mine. The landlord was heard to say that he torched the place deliberately to evict the tenants. Now that the building was condemned, he could rehab it and sell off the apartments. There were many fires in those days that were deliberately set in order to work around the "oppressive" laws that protected tenants from eviction.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Wow, even that sounds too extreme to me.

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

Hoboken is the town where Frank Sinatra grew up. He was famous for having ties to the Mob. Hoboken was a wonderful place to live as long as your landlord was not interested in upgrading his infrastructure at your expense. One of its most famous residents is John Sales:

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Sinatra grew up in Antwerp, Belgium?

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

Hoboken, NJ was named after a small Dutch town. There was a York in England before the York in New York. Likewise, the Bulgarian town predated the one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophia,_West_Virginia) in West Virginia.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Sophia =/= Sofia.

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

I know. And gyro =/= shawarma

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

LOL OK.

[vehemencet-t.livejournal.com]

I disagree that the state is necessary to "maintain the balance" between public and private interests. I feel that what is necessary is an evaluation and understanding of why those who have power, whether, in the example of this post, via nationalization or privatization, misuse that power in these ways. What motivates them to do that? Is it not the prospect of large gains should their exploitation succeed? Even with a state to provide as you say, "balance", all that results is those in the state carrying on the same kinds of exploitation. It is a self-serving institution and with near sole control of force, of wealth generation, of land use and "law", it becomes exceedingly easy and largely inevitable.

I think what needs to change is the enforced valuation of money as such--that is, its abolition--and a return to shared productive property and resource management so that there are no real gains to make from exploiting or defrauding one another (because wealth is not measured in units which can purchase real things as everything is functionally free) and there is no hoarding of the vast majority of resources by a minority elite who then use it to control and make the rest of the population dependent on them.

Any reforms made within the capitalist and statist spheres will, I feel, always fall woefully short in any real change, whether under the guise of "communism" or "the market", so long as these inherent problems of our modern civilization are ignored, and true freedom will ways be an ideal rather than reality.

No Money, No Master.

Land for all who would work it, not as an assignment from some central authority but as a free choice.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

> Is it not the prospect of large gains should their exploitation succeed?

Well that's the key, isn't it? They're let to succeed. Because there's no civic society here. Just factions and groups. That's not necessarily the case elsewhere/anywhere.

If a few top politicians end up in jail after all this, the next ones will think twice before trying exploitation.

You lost me at the abolition of money. Me likes my money! (If I had it).
And then, kill the old master and you'll get a new one.

[vehemencet-t.livejournal.com]

Its not a few politicians or bankers. Jailing them will not solve anything. It's a system founded to systematize, impose and protect a societal model based on the domination and exploitation of the made-dependent many by an entrenched elite few. It does arguably very well what it was intended to do. It's just that that intention is rather bad for the rest of us. In this system the sate is the arguably the largest organized vehicle for exploitation around. Who will jail them? And that money you say you like (really I think it's the things it can get us that we actually like of course ;)? It's one of their chief weapons of control--which is why I targeted it.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Let me guess. You heard that in the Zeitgeist movie?

[vehemencet-t.livejournal.com]

Never seen it myself actually.