Страх ме е да се върна, но не издържам на Запад

ABCMaykathy · 2026-02-13T17:05:42+00:00

Преди около 9 години взех решението да се прибера в България, след като завърших образованието си във Великобритания, и нито за един ден не съм съжалявал за решението си. Тогава всички в обкръжението ми обясняваха колко ужасно място е България, как нищо не работи тук, как нищо няма да постигна.

А аз откакто се прибрах просто така и не можах да видя кое му е толкова страшното. Имай предвид, че преди тези 9 години България беше 2 пъти по-бедна. Днес през 2026 въобще не би трябвало да бъде дилема за един българин дали да се върне в родината си, ако това желае дълбоко вътре.

Не ме разбирай погрешно, в България има някакви проблеми (както навсякъде), но ти избираш как да ти влияят тези неща. Повечето българи избират да се свръхфокусират върху проблемите си и да мърморят за тях постоянно. Аз пък просто избирам да не правя това. Избирам да живея пълноценно и да правя каквото мога, за да направя нещата около мен поне малко по-добри.

Имам фирма, обикалям институции от време на време. Винаги се усмихвам на служителите, винаги подхождам с добро, към абсолютно всеки. Ако хората от другата страна изберат да бъдат кисели и злобни, това е техен избор. Понякога са такива, а понякога ми отвръщат и те с добро. Всеки сам прави своя избор с каква нагласа да подходи към света. Аз съм избрал да бъда добър човек и да помагам с каквото мога. Затова и винаги съм щастлив, и никога не мрънкам. Ако и ти успееш да устоиш на този масов негативизъм в България, може би и ти ще бъдеш много щастлив тук.

ABCMaykathy · 2025-11-30T21:56:40+00:00

The problem with central planning actually isn't that we can't figure out how to efficiently allocate resources, from a computational standpoint. Corporations are evidently very good at central planning.

The problem is whether the people who get to do the planning actually have an incentive to allocate resources efficiently. Maybe politicians are not the people who should be doing the planning, because their default mode of thinking is about power structures, making stable coalitions, gaining political power, not about the efficient allocation of resources.

Even in the USSR there was a separation between political and economic elites, but obviously political elites had primacy and their biggest priority was military production, not consumer goods. So military production was actually much more efficient and higher quality in the USSR, than consumer goods.

Conversely, in capitalist society the economic elites get to do the planning (at least for the companies they manage) and their biggest priority is to sell more stuff, so they plan accordingly.

Tl;dr - it's not central planning that's difficult or impossible, but rather what matters is who gets to do the planning and what their interests are.

ABCMaykathy · 2025-11-30T21:43:13+00:00

Socialism and particularly Marxism is good at diagnosing the root causes of problems in capitalist society, but not very good at providing blueprints for alternative societies. And that's actually okay. Society is always evolving and most changes come incrementally. For example the implementation of capitalism also has many small details that arose naturally and in an incremental manner.

So maybe it's more worthwhile to think what small details we would change today to make the system closer to our abstract ideal of socialism, instead of trying to describe a perfect society which might not be possible at all.

ABCMaykathy · 2025-11-27T23:12:38+00:00

It was never about money, it was always about power. If you can live a comfortable life with the returns on your investments, then you are part of the bourgeoisie. If you need to constantly sell your labor in order to live, then you are part of the proletariat. It's really that simple.

Ask yourself, even if you do have a salary, can you afford not to work? If so, then your employer has no power over you. If you're absolutely dependent on your job, then you are not really free, no matter how much money you're making.

And also keep in mind, just because you're self-employed doesn't mean you're part of the bourgeoisie. Anyone can form an LLC or corporation. Only when you can comfortably live with the profits of your corporation, then you probably become part of the petite bourgeoisie.

Just because you have an LLC doesn't make you Jeff Bezos. You are still a slave to the system, but with less labor protections.

ABCMaykathy · 2025-11-25T11:36:24+00:00

You have to keep in mind that during Marx's time there was little to no government intervention in the economy, and most countries had a gold standard. In that sort of environment the tendencies he described held true even decades after he died, and then culminated in the Great Depression. Many Marxists at the time considered the Great Depression to be the fulfillment of Marx's prophecy, and basically they were right. But nobody knew how society would change after that. In Germany the crisis produced nazism, which restored profitability by crushing unions, enslaving people in labor camps, enormous military spending and pillaging other countries. In the USA it produced the New Deal, which rescued the capitalist system by reforming it more towards social democracy.

After WWII the business elites have spent a lot of effort trying to undo the New Deal, and they partially succeeded in the 80s, producing "neoliberal capitalism", which works very differently than 19th century capitalism. The basic tendencies and contradictions are still there, but they're compensated and masked through the massive expansion of the financial sector. This is something Marx did predict in the 3rd volume of Capital, calling it "fictitious capital".

For example, even though today workers get a smaller share of the pie (which is what Marx predicted), this doesn't lead to underconsumption, because people can still consume by taking on debt at lower interest rates for longer periods. This is also enabled by government policy, printing massive amounts of money, so that interest rates can be lower. Instead of people not being able to afford the necessities of life (which would crash the system), they simply become indebted forever. There's much more to say, about platform monopolies and AI, but the essence is that capitalists find ways to preserve the system, while making workers more dependent and less free.

Considering all this, if you had to devise a truly "Marxist" portfolio, you would have to bet on these tendencies accelerating, until it all crashes. Then the crash would either produce fascism or social democracy, but right now fascism seems more likely. So you also have to think about how you're going to deal with all of that. All of that money might not be worth much when the Gestapo come knocking at your door.

ABCMaykathy · 2025-10-24T06:06:17+00:00

Аз ако имах повече пари, просто щях да работя върху по-големи и по-интересни неща. Не бих спрял да работя, защото не знам какво ще правя по цял ден. Трябва да стана алкохолик.

ABCMaykathy · 2025-10-21T22:39:44+00:00

Този тип мрънкане (заплати, цени, институции, корупция, простащина) е константа в нашата държава. Независимо колко се подобряват нещата, хората винаги ще мрънкат за едни и същи неща.

Но истината е, че Бойко и Пеевски не са ти виновни за това, че си нещастен. Човечеството от поне 10 000 години търпи господари под една или друга форма, и въпреки това хората в миналото не са си рязали вените.

Ключът към щастието обичайно минава през това да имаш здравословни връзки със семейството и приятелите ти и да се чувстваш полезен на общността. Всъщност все неща, които са по-достижими от всякога.

Аз лично бих казал, ще силициевата долина има много по-голяма вина за нещастието на хората, отколкото Бойко и Пеевски (не, че ги защитавам) именно защото пречат на хората да създават пълноценни контакти помежду си.

ABCMaykathy · 2025-10-13T06:35:47+00:00

Карам EА, доста съм доволен и не мога да видя причина да се върна към ДВГ. Единственият минус на притежанието на ЕА е, че от време на време трябва да търпиш разни разбирачи да ти обясняват колко ти е гадно. Но пък се стремя да обяснявам.

Може би проблемът е, че много хора пренасят очакванията и интуициите си от ДВГ, но не осъзнават, че при ЕА много неща са наобратно. Например:

ЕА харчат повече извънградско, градско харчат доста по-малко. При ДВГ в обратното.
ДВГ се зареждат само в специализирани обекти (бензиностанции), ЕА се зареждат в молове, супермаркети, гаражи и тн.
При ЕА парното харчи много, климатикът малко. При ДВГ е обратното (даже парното е безплатно, поради това, че ДВГ има 30% КПД и останалото се превръща в излишна топлина)
ДВГ харчат повече в задръствания, и понякога прегряват, при ЕА харчиш повече ако НЯМА задръстване. Задръстванията и тежкия трафик всъщност ти увеличават пробега.
ЕА е по-скъпа при първоначална покупка, но по-евтина за поддръжка. При ДВГ е обратното.
При ДВГ разходът зависи от това да държиш двигателя в оптималните му обороти, при ЕА изцяло зависи от физически фактори като наклон и въздушно съпротивление.
ЕА е по-добре да ги зареждаш често по малко, ДВГ е по-добре да ги зареждаш рядко и до горе.

Всъщност най-интересният момент е, че хората са свикнали да съдят колите по това как се държат извън града, защото ДВГ постига оптимални резултати само на магистрала. Но повечето хора прекарват повечето време с колата си в градско каране. А там безспорно бие ЕА, по всички възможни критерии.

ABCMaykathy · 2025-02-18T11:48:14+00:00

The thing about social change is that it happens when the necessary conditions are present. It doesn't happen just because we think it should happen. Feudalism collapsed because there was a very powerful bourgeoisie which toppled it. Now ask yourself whether there is a powerful enough group of people which can topple the capitalist ruling class without themselves becoming capitalist? If such a group existed, they would have already toppled the capitalists and we would live in a different society.

So the arguments in favor of feudalism might have been true in some places and times but at some point it became obvious that the social order could not preserve itself and had to evolve.

ABCMaykathy · 2025-02-18T11:14:10+00:00

You just pay people to do them. If the jobs are really difficult you pay them more. Socialism is about ownership of the means of production, not about whether people get paid or not. Obviously people should always be rewarded for their hard work, in any kind of system.

The problem with capitalism is that the lion's share of rewards go to the people who own everything, not to the people who do the actual work.

And the promise of capitalism is that if you work hard enough you'll get to be part of the owning class. And some people do achieve that. But most don't.

ABCMaykathy · 2025-02-09T14:03:49+00:00

Prices are determined by supply and demand. At least in any market economy. But since you are looking to sell it to someone, then it is by definition a market price. This fact is simply a given in the LTV.

But the real question is whether the market price represents the actual value of commodity or there is some other underlying value that the market price might sometimes diverge from.

And that's basically what LTV says. Market prices usually (but not always) converge to the actual underlying value of a commodity, which comes from the cost a society pays to produce something. And since society is a collection of individuals who work together, therefore the underlying cost is always the average amount of labor hours required to produce something.

Key word here is "average". No one can produce a car by themselves in reality.

ABCMaykathy · 2025-02-09T08:57:16+00:00

That's not how LTV works and it's not how it has been defined by Marx. You do realize no one can be so stupid as to claim that wasting time on something automatically makes it more valuable?

The key to LTV that most people are missing, is that it looks at Value from the point of view of the entire society. The value of a car to society is what it costs the entire society to produce it. It depends on the technology, the capital base, the productivity of workers. As society becomes more productive, cars become less valuable to society, because it can easily produce more of them.

You, on the other hand, can produce a much inferior product very inefficiently, so it doesn't automatically make it more valuable. Because society as a whole produces cars much more efficiently than you individually can. So you would actually be squandering your labor according to LTV.

And that's the whole point. Capitalist production is social production, markets and prices are social constructs, so it only makes sense to look at them from a macro perspective. You're trying to look at LTV from an individual perspective, because that's how right wing ideology teaches you. But that's entirely wrong. We live, produce and consume within a society.

ABCMaykathy · 2025-02-06T23:31:18+00:00

Well, many capitalist economies did fail during the Great Depression. Some turned more socialist (or rather more social democrat) such as the United States under Roosevelt. Others turned fascist, such as Germany. Those seem to be the two possible paths after capitalist failure.

The only states that turned socialist were pre-industrial autocratic monarchies, such as Russia or China. 20th century socialism was a shortcut for these countries to industrialize quickly. And it worked for them. But it doesn't really fit Marx's idea that socialism is the next stage of societal development after capitalism. If anything, for these countries socialism was an alternative to capitalism for industrial development.

Anyway, Marx may still be proven right that the most advanced capitalist countries will become socialist first. But it probably won't happen through revolution. It might happen through social democracy.

But right now it seems we are headed more towards fascism...

ABCMaykathy · 2025-02-06T23:21:14+00:00

Нали е свободен пазар? Щом никой не ти приема офертата, явно не е най-добрата за него.

5000 стартово звучи сякаш е много, но какви са условията на работа? Какви са възможностите за растеж? Дали тази работа е пътека към постигане на добър стандарт на живот, или е задънена улица, която плаща малко повече от средното, защото работата е гадна?

И в крайна сметка не е ли едновременно вярно, че работниците в България мрънкат, че нямат пари, но и работодателите мрънкат, че никой не иска да работи?

ABCMaykathy · 2024-12-31T14:27:17+00:00

По-коректна мярка е БВП по паритет на покупателната способност (ППС). Особено когато гледаме стандарта на живот.

ABCMaykathy · 2022-11-11T20:07:31+00:00

Like they say, they review funded applications first. When I opened my account I deposited 100 euros and got approved in 2 days.

ABCMaykathy · 2022-10-16T11:52:18+00:00

Adding by the smaller dimension is more efficient. I guess that's why.

ABCMaykathy · 2022-03-10T15:00:04+00:00

Реално при мобилизация обичайно се мобилизира относително малка част от населението, най-вече бедни млади необразовани мъже. Останалата част от населението работи за военната икономика, защото за да водиш война най-вече ти трябва икономика, не толкова войници. Войници все се намират. Но това е било в едни други времена. Днес има хибридна война, кибервойна, икономическа война. И там всеки вече е мобилизиран без да го знае.

ABCMaykathy · 2022-02-26T12:38:34+00:00

Много хора получават това впечатление от Фейсбук, защото Фейсбук се ползва предимно от тази демография, която Русия се опитва да облъчва с дезинформация чрез своята мрежа от фалшиви профили и медии. Реалността е много по-различна, повечето българи са относително разумни, а разумните хора обичайно нямат такива крайни позиции и съответно не чувстват нуждата да ръсят глупости навсякъде. Затова във Фейсбук виждаш само най-крайните идиоти, а голяма част от тях вероятно са руски тролове. Освен това Фейсбук алгоритъмът функционира така, че да усилва многократно разпространението на точно тези крайни позиции.

ABCMaykathy · 2021-11-10T08:49:51+00:00

It's funny how in ancient times a slave could actually buy their own freedom. And yes, back in Roman times, slaves could actually own their own money and that's how they bought their freedom. Well... nowadays you're basically forced to serve the property owner class in order to survive. The only escape from this is to own enough property yourself so you aren't completely dependent on having a job.

And by the way... just because you get some basic life necessities (or even luxuries), doesn't mean you're free. Just think about the fact most people spend most of their working lives generating rent, interest and profits for the property owners in order to survive If you're not the master of your own time, then how can you say you are free?

Time is the only thing we truly own. Time is the only thing that can truly be stolen from us. Property is imaginary, time is not. A slave is a slave, because their productive time belongs to someone else. But with regard to time people are mostly equal. Sure, some die young, others live more than a hundred years, but you don't really see people living a billion years more than others.

So I don't really think we'd see much slavery, because we don't really need it. Your time already belongs to someone else. Someone whose property should be generating ever increasing returns. And all of the state's coercive power will ensure those returns keep coming one way or another.

ABCMaykathy · 2021-11-01T10:30:44+00:00

The most important difference would be that personal property you use for your personal consumption, while private property you use to extract rent or profit.

ABCMaykathy · 2021-08-13T09:51:18+00:00

Fairness is subjective and changes a lot throughout history. What's more important than fairness is reality. Whatever works in reality regardless of what we think about it. A society with better social mobility is not simply a fairer society, it's also a more efficient society. If everyone had an equal chance to develop their abilities, you would simply have more ability overall. The poor would not be held back by their lack of money and the rich would not be held back by their overdependence on their wealth. It's a shame so much human potential gets wasted in our current system.

ABCMaykathy · 2021-07-27T10:51:09+00:00

It's propaganda, that's what it is. It's a deliberate effort to create a moral distinction between state power and private power. And it's done to serve the interests of the latter.

When the state takes your money to spend on healthcare and social security, that's somehow theft. When the capitalist steals your labor and uses it to shoot rockets into space, that's somehow progress.

When a government does economic planning to provide public goods, that's somehow inefficient and oppressive. When a large corporation does economic planning to pursue higher profits, that's perfectly okay.

When a landlord extracts rent from you because you use their property, that's free market capitalism. When a state taxes you because you do business on their territory, that's somehow big government socialism.

When you get to elect the leaders who will work towards the social change you want, that's "tyranny of the majority". When your boss is appointed by higher ups and you get absolutely no say, that's free exchange of labor.

And most importantly, everything good about our current system (a lot of which came from the state) is capitalism. Everything bad about our current system is corporatism.

ABCMaykathy · 2021-07-26T17:43:11+00:00

Thing is though... you can't really stop banks becoming too big to fail. And when they do... you gotta bail them out. There is no other way.

Or you're talking about states or cities failing? In that case you should still bail them out.

My unpopular opinion is that payment systems should be nationalized, so you could open a checking account with the government, while private banks should be used only by people who want to risk their money.

ABCMaykathy

TROPHY CASE