Well the problem with the USSR was the lack of personal freedoms, not the level of poverty I'd say.
Well the problem with the USSR was the lack of personal freedoms, not the level of poverty I'd say.
Traditional market economy best
You're say about life-expectancy was contradicting with itself. "The standard of living was equal to that of the average US citizen" and "for the most part, the West had the upper hand in terms of standard of living." are statements that are opposing each other.
Post-Soviet states are having a tough time since they have been used to communism for about 80 years. If you think everything will be perfect when switching from such a long period of communism to capitalism, you are wrong. Eventually, the post-Soviet states will develop a more successful society with a well-functioning market economy.
all of your posts are utterly worthless. you appeal to ad hominem because you have no argument to make, you only discuss vague "qualities of living" in former soviet states and vague hypothesis on the effects of revolutions on the economy while refusing to engage in any meaningful understanding or analysis of this economy. the only reason you'd do this is if you knew nothing about it; in short, you're an ignorant tool spouting propaganda you don't understand. you have nothing to add to this thread.
It had its ups and downs, which is why I said it was equal to the US but for the most part the West had the upper hand.
why do you they need to change anything. everything was practically fine up until they made the switch.
I will drop out from this pathetic argumentation now. Basically, what we can see is one person arguing with himself. Another one who is sad because everyone on his beloved forums (the only place where he can argue for communism without being owned.) do not agree with his radical, destructive and pathetic views that are taken straight from 1917. Then finally, we got the guy who believe pigs can fly, unicorns exist and the world is made of rainbows. At least we can say that his username is extremely appropriate.
I will now refer you, to someone who's more suited to debate socialism than I am; Milton Friedman.
It's not surprising the conservative in this thread didn't have shit to offer discusion wise and ends with a post full of bitching. IMO you lost your credibility when you tried to distance yourself from libertarianism, the logical conclusion of classical liberalism conservatives can't seem reconcile with yet always hark to.
Maybe this thread will get some better quality anti-communists now.
However, if you want to take over the anti-communist side here, you're very welcome to do so.
I won't be doing that seeing as I'm a marxist.
But american conservatism is pretty much right wing nationalism mixed with a gutted version of libertarianism. It's phony BS kept alive by a large and rich section of the bourgeoisie and their own media's presence. It's a bit contemptible imo.
I believe capitalism is the better system because it doesn't try to be perfect. If pure communism could exist in its intended form, it would be dandy, but it's my belief that communism is impossible in its intended state.
Capitalism is far from perfect, but it's the best we've got so far.
I think the ideal political system would be something like what Sweden has, a middle grounds between socialism and capitalism.
The problem with the USSR was the lack of personal freedoms AND the level of poverty. The USSR was pretty damn close to being a third world country for a long time, now I'd wager that they are still a second world country. The problem with communism is that it may sound great on paper, but in the end it will never work out. Every live test of communism that we have seen has ended up in a semi-dictatorship because the people responsible for the distribution of wealth and care abused their power.
Back on topic, the Level of poverty in the USSR was certainly a huge problem. But both that and the lack of freedom stem from Lenin's belief in the Vanguard party.
The USSR was nowhere near being a third world country, even the old Russian empire was past that point as the 5th largest economy in europe. By 1933 after the NEP and the first five year plan, the USSR was an industrial and technical giant that would eventually use its massive productive capability to build a valuable new trade bloc out of a bunch of peasant dominated, semi feudal countries. It wasn't really until 1985 with radical liberal reforms the economy began to sink.
Btw kakistocrat, that 'three worlds' thing is a maoist thing and doesn't mean any of that.
Can you guys actually source the claim that the USSR was 'poverty riddled'?
According to wikipedia, in the late-Soviet period the level of poverty in the USSR stood at 1.5% as opposed to that of the US which was about 15-20%.
I think that Communism works in theory, but not practically. I am not a fan of Capitalism either, and strict capitalism is not what I want. I like socialism, with taxes but still; a generally speaking free society.
On-topic: I think communism CAN work perfectly well, I just don't think it ever will.
Both systems are fatally flawed.
Communism As many have said before me; works great in theory, but not practically. It assumes that everyone is put equally on the same footing. While Ben is a shoe maker and Larry is a woodcutter they are both fed, housed, paid, and warm all the same at the end of the night. In reality however, the needs of the many come second before the needs of a very few who typically see "Everyone else" as necessary to abide by Communism while they themselves are privileged to do as they like. This leads to an imbalance and abuse of the system. It will almost always fail.
Capitalism, a system we in the West here are all too familiar with, works great in the beginning. Capitalism encourages competition and a strong economy. With everyone competing the best products are sure to come out. Unfortunately, after the economy has existed for a while and it's buyers/sellers learn the ropes, they begin to manipulate and cheat the system in an effort to become the "top dog" of whatever it is they are buying and selling. This is how come companies such as Walmart and Goldman sax have been able to become so large and powerful within their industries. So again, Capitalism works at first but not forever.
Personally, neither of them are ideal nor is any other economic structure around today. They are all principally based off an idea of infinite resources, resources without end. This view or belief is severely flawed and will lead us down a dark road. We need a system that runs an ECONOMY, Capitalism and Communism are not economies, they are systems. Economies work to distribute and safeguard a limited supply of resources according to supply/demand. What we do now is mindlessly waste resources under the name of something entirely different.
I believe, that if we would adopt a global, unified ideology, we would indeed run faster out of resources - but, this will also stimulate massive technological and industrial innovations and breakthroughs, we would struggle to come up with a solution at first, and then eventually expand onward into the universe in search of resources and planets to inhabit and colonize.
Basically, speeding up humanity.
Each, in concept is fully viable and effective. However in practice both systems get corrupt faster than an apple in a pile of maggots. The problem is that both rely on a subjective leadership, and involve either monetary or freedom inequality. These two things cause unrest in the populous regardless of how pure the original intentions were.
These were supposted to be temporary and Khrushchev declared to have ''achieved communism'' (and better housing) in 20 years, which would have been the 1980's, but now up to the 2010's people are still living in these apartments. Apartments were built on the principle: Build fast and in huge quantities.
Actually these buildings were built to have a 25-year lifetime, aka. these apartments were ''disposable''.
Once again Communism failed to achieve something.
Idea was good, but the whole system eventually fails. Partially because of the human nature.
Khrushchyovkas do not represent the entirety of Soviet/Russian housing. And just because it was a 'communal house' doesn't make it shit, private housing is strictly a Western phenomena and is not factually better.
Although, I am not glorifying Soviet housing, for it is a known fact that it was one of the shortcomings of the SU - and even then, was not that bad.
Communism is fine until you introduce humans to it, because there will be people high up who abuse it.
As in, it works well in theory, socialism is where it's at, left wing in general is, but I don't think politics really follow wings anymore at all.
Capitalism, for human greed ruins what communism is.
I wish people would stop thinking that the USSR and other dictatorships were Communist (The USSR was a Leninist dictatorship). You can't have a leader in a true Communist system.
Capitalism works fine until people get greedy, take excessive risks and then plunge the economy into turmoil. That is hardly a sustainable economic model.
Capitalism works fine until some guy decides that the government ought to make some laws that end up benefiting the elite and you get corporatism.
Also note that "true" Marxist communism is technically anarchism.
For me personally, I think that Capitalism is a good way to distribute resources but I do not think it is the fairest way to distribute resources. In a way I see Socialism and Communism as a way to further Liberal ideas. You cannot have equality of opportunity if there are massive differences in economic wealth. The poor have hidden talents but are unable to develop them because they have to spend their time stacking shelves in order to survive - that is hardly the best way for humanity to develop its full potential.
I can't believe this is even being debated...
Capitalism is the best socioeconomic system that mankind has come up with thus far. Why? Capitalism, is not inherently flaws like Marxism is.
When Capitalism was first introduced in the early 19th Century, the flaws were obvious. Yes workers were exploited, and guess what? government regulation and social policy fixed that problem. For the last 200 years the world has operated on the market principles of Capitalism, and we've seen more advancements than in mankind's previous thousands of years of existence combined. Now before some economically illiterate child claims that Capitalism is broken, and that it caused the 2007 recession. Let me remind you that Capitalism, our socioeconomic system, is the constant, and governments and their policies, are the variable. And when you look at the facts you will see that all the major periods of economic downturn in the past 200 years, which have been mere spots, in a period of massive economic growth , you will see that they were all caused by poor government policy. The Great Depression was caused by government regulation and intervention. There was no depression in America until Hoover started interfering in the economy. Unemployment in USA in the 1st year after the stock market crash was never over 10%. It later soared to the high 20s during the FDR administration.
This latest recession, was caused by bad government policy that facilitated and created Crony Capitalism and Corporate Socialism. Bailing out banks is not Capitalism. Bail outs don't happen in Capitalism, period. Banks don't get favors from the government in Capitalism, period.
Now on to Marxism. Marxism is the worst socioeconomic system ever created. And I say Marxism, not Communism. The Marxist theory it's self is inherently broken. Which is why whenever Marxism is implemented, we get more sinister forms of Communism, like Stalinism or Maoism. If you still refuse to accept that then you can read this:
Woah, Government regulation in a Capitalist economy?
Capitalism is designed to work without government intervention. Capitalism arose after the businessmen got fed up with Mercantilism and the large amount of government control it brought.
That is subjective. I could argue that Capitalism is bad since the world made the most significant leap in advancement during the Ancient Hellenic world. Philosophy, Science, Mathematics, Politics and Democracy all appeared in the space of that time period. Therefore a basic Feudal society is the best socio-economic system?
You have a very odd view of the Great Depression. If bad government policy is the cause of all economic downturns how come the Great Depression effect the entire world and not just America? Did the entire world's politicians screw up simultaneously?
Also you ignore the fact that there were economic screw-ups before the great depression.
You are correct banks shouldn't get bail-outs under Capitalism. But why were the banks bailed out in the first place?
In the UK the bank RBS made a disastrous investment in ABN Amro which meant the bank began to haemorrhage money. The UK government had to bail the bank out in order to prevent a collapse of the UK economy. If RBS went bust it would mean a huge amount of UK investments, savings and pensions would have disappeared.
You cannot claim that the government caused RBS to collapse, it was a bad investment decided by the CEO of RBS. If RBS was not bailed out then the entire UK economy would go into a very deep and very long recession.
You cannot claim that all of Marx is broken. Have you read all of Marx? Marx wrote hundreds of articles and tens of books. University lecturers admit that studying Marx properly would take a lifetime. And for the last time: Stalinism and Maoism are not forms of Communism. First of all, they have a state (something Marx believed should "wither away"). Also Stalinsim and Maoism are merely dictatorships with a state run economy (Marx disagreed with a state and he disagreed with a state-run economy).
That is a very large bias wall of text. The author is blatantly against Marxism and omits many important details. I could do a point by point analysis on the text you quoted but I won't: it would be a waste of my time and you would not read it anyway. Instead I will take the final paragraph and ridicule it.
Firstly, the author shows his ignorance when he states that a Communist society will suppress political theory. The author is using Stalinism as an example of Communism which it is most definitely not.Huge ass bias wall of text posted:
Secondly, Capitalism is not a socio-economic system - it is merely an economic system. Capitalism does not state any way in which society is formed. The author confuses Liberalism with Capitalism which are two completely different things.
The author's rhetorical question at the end is a logical fallacy - it is an appeal to emotion. To state that Locke (a Liberal and not a Capitalist) and Smith (A capitalist that did not write anything on the type of society we should live in) somehow allow people to read Marx is rubbish. Under a Communist society the people will be free to do what they wish and think what they wish.
America annoys me greatly when they conflate Liberalism with Capitalism.
A final thought, please post the author of the wall of text you posted. A proper argument needs to have proper sources.
TL;DR - Read my points and realise how you debate.
(Sorry for the wall of text, ignorance annoys me)
implying there's ever actually been a communist state, and not just socialist dictatorships (and guess what the real problem was there (the dictatorship part))
'Corporate socialism' lmfao
Poor liberals. I'd hate to have to redefine everything to suit my views every once in a while.