[KlassWar]

The bolsheviks and other commies already tried that and failed miserably to do anything positive!

- Massive industrialization and technological modernization.
- Universal education and healthcare.
- All sorts of social services, making most living expenses pretty much free.
- Un-fucking-believable leaps in production.
- Going from one of the most backward to one of the most advanced nations in the goddamn world.
- Crushing the Nazis in war.
- Successfully transitioning from a totalitarian system to a much less oppressive political culture.

[sarc]Yeah, them Red Soviets never achieved a single thing.[/sarc]

[Eran]

KlassWar,
At the end of the day, the Wall stopped people going East to West, not the other way around.

If Marxism worked so well, why was it necessary to forcibly stop people from leaving it?

[The Captain]

Rich people are corrupted by the "reward system" of the human brain. Power stimulates this system and drives people to seek more pleasant rewards.

Therefore, people who are rich and thus have power tend to be more tempted to cheat on their wives/husbands.

If we stick to Schopenhauer's definition that "pity" is the only moral motive, it might be interesting to see if rich people tend to have more empathy than others.

But unfortunately, I think that it is likely that the reward system would prevent them from feeling "pity".

[KlassWar]

KlassWar,
At the end of the day, the Wall stopped people going East to West, not the other way around.

If Marxism worked so well, why was it necessary to forcibly stop people from leaving it?

Had net migration flows ever went the other way 'round? After two decades of make-believe democracy and capitalism, people are still movin' West.

[Eran]

Indeed. Because despite best efforts, the legacy of decades of communism still persist.

[KlassWar]

Actually people left Russia both before, during and after Bolshevism. The USSR didn't cause the problem, they simply failed to overtake the West economically: The USSR consistently remained some 10 years behind or so in development.

Coulda been worse: Actually in most other non-Western places it was much worse.

[Eran]

Then look at East vs. West Germany. Or North vs. South Korea. Or Cuba.

In each and every case, people seem to be fleeing Worker's Paradise towards Capitalist Exploitation.

[KlassWar]

Some socialist countries (like Romania or Albania) were run into the ground by incompetent assholes. Other socialist countries were quite poor to begin with: Catchin'up with the West was gonna take a long time either way.

A few socialist countries were particularly oppressive, mostly because the leadership was infiltrated by cultural conservative elements who used dictatorial power to enshrine their moralistic prejudices as policy. This has been a significant problem in the past, leading to socialist regimes losing support of the youth, the progressive faction of the working class and the intelligentsia.

Then again, most socialist countries collapsed in the Nineties... And plenty Western countries have had reactionary policies (censorship, criminalization of gays, drug prohibition, take your pick) during the same period. Culture has liberalized a whole lot lately: Some of the non-crazy socialist countries have also liberalized socially (like Cuba and Vietnam dropping the homophobia). A few socialist countries are culturally backward because they are materially backward.


There's an extra factor to consider: Naturally, people move in both directions. Socialist countries that tried to prevent migration lost those who did escape. Socialist countries who didn't (like Yugoslavia) had two-way flows of people. Most flow was outwards because people flock toward wealthier regions, but Yugoslavs didn't want to escape their country in droves.

[Eran]

In any country, most people prefer not to leave. For one thing, it is an unfortunate fact of the past 100 years that most countries restrict incoming immigration, making it difficult for economically-motivated people to move.

And I take your point regarding the range of circumstances in different socialist countries.

What is striking, however, is that there isn't a single example of an economically-prosperous socialist country. We do, on the other hand, have several examples (mainly in East Asia) of countries that emerged from poverty in the space of just a few decades by adopting (broadly) capitalist policies.

[The Captain]

What is striking, however, is that there isn't a single example of an economically-prosperous socialist country. We do, on the other hand, have several examples (mainly in East Asia) of countries that emerged from poverty in the space of just a few decades by adopting (broadly) capitalist policies.

I may repeat points that have already been made in the past but all positive efforts to build a socialist country have been thwarted by external forces, one could take Chile or Venezuela as examples.

And East Asian countries that "emerged from poverty" are not really examples that deserve to be upheld... In a sense you're right they did do some "progress" (I'm not sure about the meaning of the word progress here) but it has been trough ruthless workers' exploitation, child labor and terrible environmental damages.

[Kman]

I may repeat points that have already been made in the past but all positive efforts to build a socialist country have been thwarted by external forces, one could take Chile or Venezuela as examples.

Nobody thwarted communism in China, North Korea, Cambodia or the Soviet Union and yet they were still colossal failures.

And East Asian countries that "emerged from poverty" are not really examples that deserve to be upheld... In a sense you're right they did do some "progress" (I'm not sure about the meaning of the word progress here) but it has been trough ruthless workers' exploitation, child labor and terrible environmental damages.

I am sure the workers prefer this over starving to death by the millions like they did in communist China and still are doing in North Korea.

[The Captain]

Nobody thwarted communism in China, North Korea, Cambodia or the Soviet Union and yet they were still colossal failures.

Frankly, I haven't seen much "communism" in these countries, just some dictators or some oligarchy that rule and ruler under the banner of communism, but it's not because that you claim loudly that you are a communist that you are one.

I am sure the workers prefer this over starving to death by the millions like they did in communist China and still are doing in North Korea.

I'm glad that you are satisfied with the lesser of two evils, however I'm not. Turning a blind eye on the problems posed by capitalism, accepting them as a necessary evil isn't going to bring anything good.

Besides, I'm not saying that capitalism -in general- cannot work, I'm just saying that the type of capitalism that we have nowadays isn't working. I'd be happy to expand on that if you wish.

[Eran]

Frankly, I haven't seen much "communism" in these countries, just some dictators or some oligarchy that rule and ruler under the banner of communism, but it's not because that you claim loudly that you are a communist that you are one.

Historic observation suggests, at the very least, that revolutions outwardly motivated by communist rhetoric tend to result in oppression and economic stagnation.

Why do you suppose that is the case?

[mum]

- Massive industrialization and technological modernization.
- Universal education and healthcare.
- All sorts of social services, making most living expenses pretty much free.
- Un-fucking-believable leaps in production.
- Going from one of the most backward to one of the most advanced nations in the goddamn world.
- Crushing the Nazis in war.
- Successfully transitioning from a totalitarian system to a much less oppressive political culture.

Certainly possible with a nation of slaves on the verge of starvation.

Sure If I had a whole stack of slaves working for me for a little gruel and pretend healthcare I could also do few cool things like build an army and invent a few new things.
If Russia was a free country the would be the richest and most powerful in the world even today (probably)

I love your point "All sorts of social services, making most living expenses pretty much free"
When you steal $10 off someone then give them a $2 voucher, are you providing "free services" for them ? LOL

[Nunt]

A few socialist countries were particularly oppressive, mostly because the leadership was infiltrated by cultural conservative elements who used dictatorial power to enshrine their moralistic prejudices as policy. This has been a significant problem in the past, leading to socialist regimes losing support of the youth, the progressive faction of the working class and the intelligentsia.

I find it strange that one the one hand you reject dictatorial and oppressive regimes in self-proclaimed communist countries, but that you on the other hand want to use the same means (class struggle, socialist revolution) to obtain a different result. Even if true socialism is desirable, history has definatly pointed out that true socialism cannot be achieved through the means that you wish to use.

[The Captain]

Historic observation suggests, at the very least, that revolutions outwardly motivated by communist rhetoric tend to result in oppression and economic stagnation.

Why do you suppose that is the case?

You're right, as I said, it's not because a revolution is motivated by communist rhetoric that it will result in a truly successful communist state, instead it has resulted in oligarchical tyranny (or dictatorial) and completely missed to serve the people...

And, according to me, the case is -as I said- because people are not culturally ready to live in a communist state. There are many reasons why they're not ready, amongst them the lack of quality education (I know it's quite easy to blame everything on education, but since I became a teacher I've realized that education had still a lot of progress to do...).

Still, I think the quality of life would be better in a truly communist state, but will we be ready to live a such a state? Sadly, I have no idea...

[Baff]

Nobody thwarted communism in China, North Korea, Cambodia or the Soviet Union and yet they were still colossal failures.

Hardly.

North Korea has managed to keep the US in a stalemete for the last 60 years. That's a stupendous achievement.
The Soviet Union managed to turn a peasant economy into an industrial one in time to defeat fascism and unify half of Europe under it. Another stupendous achievement.
China has brought more people out of poverty in recent years than the rest of the world combined in the last few hundred years not to mention maintained the largest stable society in the history of mankind.

And I don't know anything about Cambodia.

I think you are confusing your prejudices with failure.

Socialism works fine in any number of societies. That's not to say it will work better in your society than the system you are more used to. Only that the system itelf is not the issue. One system is much the same as another. They serve the same functions and are prone to the same human failings.

[Baff]

If Russia was a free country the would be the richest and most powerful in the world even today (probably)

If America was a gulag, it would still be the richest country in the world today. Possibly richer than it is now.

If wealth was dependant on freedom, Saudi would be unimaginably poor. But it's not.

[Eran]

Hardly.

North Korea has managed to keep the US in a stalemete for the last 60 years. That's a stupendous achievement.

While starving its citizens.

The key to properly judging the relative success of capitalist and socialist economies is to focus on consumer preferences. Capitalist (and only capitalist) economies tend to direct development and production into consumer satisfaction. Socialist economies tend to focus production on government priorities, often military or prestige in nature.

I challenge anybody to show any socialist society (one in which means of production are exclusively or predominantly publicly owned) which had a decent record of meeting the needs and preferences of its members.

[Baff]

While starving its citizens.

It's people preferred surivial.

The country has met those needs consistently in the face of 60 years of aggression from the worlds largest military.



I think your question is vacuous in it's limitations.

You want people to show you a state run economy that has never had to face up to shortages of production. Might as well ask someone to show you an orange apple. Or an aeroplane that flies under the sea.


State run economies are the optimum solution to shortages of production.

We don't expect the state to run economies in places where it has no need to be at all.


If there are no shortages, then a state run economy is not the preferred type.

So if you come from a country that has never had any shortages, you won't understand the benefit of a state run economy.


While if you ever have, you will know that state control is the best way of managing them them. So that you learn to expect state run economies in times of crisis or production shortfall.

In short, communism is the right system for countries in certain circumstances. And not for others in which the circumstances differ.



Just as we don't expect to see firemen attending pipebursts, we don't expect to see communist systems in countries where there are not production shortages.
Just as we could blame the increase of pipebursts on the lack of attendant fireman, we could blame production shortfalls on lack of capitalism.
But that would be an incredably stupid position to take. An act of prejudice over common sense.



In WW2 my country (GB) had a state run economy. And for the next 10 years after.
We chose, military might over food, (just as the N Koreans have done).
We had rationing and enforced labour for all, free to the state.

Once we got past all that we started with the free market capitalism again as we had had before we entered our national crisis.
Both systems work, actually the state ran economy worked better. Increasing production and lower production costs. But it comes at the price of civil liberty, and there comes a point where people can afford more civil liberties. When they are wealthy enough and secure enough for their priorities to change.