Morale in Past Socialist States - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

As either the transitional stage to communism or legitimate socio-economic ends in its own right.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#828718
That former and present socialist countries have low morale is kind of a cliche.

But it occured to me recently that in a state where resources are shared equally, suffering will be shared too.

If there aren't enough resources to go around, everyone will be short whereas in capitalist ones, because of inequality there will always be some people that will easily weather times of shortage while others starve.

As a result, in times of great shortage, a country where resources are shared will have a larger percentage of population that is suffering than in an unequal one even when per capita resources are the same.

It sucks, but it's true.
User avatar
By Red Rebel
#829195
It sucks, but it's true.


Yes it is true. First of all the "goverment" would put most of its energy towards basic demands, such as food, shelter, ect. It would not be wasted on other less important items that are common it capitalism.

because of inequality there will always be some people that will easily weather times of shortage while others starve.


That would also be rather drastic. It would have to be a massive disaster. Capitalism has booms and busts. Socialism is more stable.

What you are saying is true, but it is an unlikely situation.
User avatar
By Nicktheconfucianist
#830626
As a result, in times of great shortage, a country where resources are shared will have a larger percentage of population that is suffering than in an unequal one even when per capita resources are the same.



Well in an capitalistic country a few would be saved but the rest is dead for sure,these rich folks would spend all this''emergency''cash on luxury,so the poor will have almost nothing left.
The amount of suffering will increase considerably in a capitalistic country.

Example:let's say Africa in colonial times,people where starving.
just a few lived like gods,I'm not trying to debate how Africa would have turnd out if it was socialistic it's just an example.

numerically you're right, but is the amount not more important?
Unless you take it so far that only a few can be saved,only
then it would be better for me.
User avatar
By Mikolaj
#831321
Even in WWII though, didn't the Allied governments put restrictions on consumption for certain products deemed important for the war effort?
By Luxemburgs_Pastry_Chef
#831683
And how about the free market of today? How about the downright unfair, albeit free-market based rules that deem that the third world cannot compete with the developed Northern countries based on rates of the organic composition of capital and the general cost of products that the North produce which outweigh the developments of the South - based on cost. A sack of grain from Europe is dirt cheap in comparison with the grain of Africa - hence in competition, the third world must lower itself to an even lesser state of industrial development, by market-laws, and getting rid of many unprofitable agricultural enterprises!

The argument that socialism means equal suffering for all would mean equal pleasure for all, but it is based on a fallacy - as it is, my counterstatement can't really be counted nor your first statement. With international socialism, it would be ensured that trade and industry were integrated worldwide on a basis that they weer fo the self-betterment of that particular state, with the help of the global community - so the third world might acquire the technology to create computers, using the sands of the Sahara for silicone chips, but it would be let to do so, rather than having a Northern company, say, outproducing or undercutting it - until global equilibrium is reached between the primary, secondary and tertiary industries.
User avatar
By Truthseeker
#831754
The argument that socialism means equal suffering for all would mean equal pleasure for all,

until global equilibrium is reached between the primary, secondary and tertiary industries.


But until states reach such a stage the setbacks all progress necessitates and the low starting point mean that times of hardship will in the mean time still occur.

My argument was that equal suffering or equal pleasure meant that those times of suffering will have more dissatisfied people than countries with constantly well off and constantly suffering people.

That that's why people in developing socialist countries it has been noted that people have lower morale than those in capitalist ones.
By Luxemburgs_Pastry_Chef
#832478
How exactly do you mean a lower morale mong people? if you read H.N. Brailsford's "How the Soviets Work", I think you might understand the difference between pre-revolutionary Russian day-to-day life with that after the revolution, a whole ten years on - Ivan's story in particular.

My argument was that equal suffering or equal pleasure meant that those times of suffering will have more dissatisfied people than countries with constantly well off and constantly suffering people.


It's a matter of relative material benefit to you, which to some extent is extremely important, but with no life, no culture, no social activity and freedoms life is extremely dull and quite a bore. So do you see it fit to allow society to grind "those who choose to be," or "those who are by birth," or "those who cannot be anything other than," poor beneath it's heel, as a necessary evil of society?

That that's why people in developing socialist countries it has been noted that people have lower morale than those in capitalist ones.


- Source me, source everyone please - morale as in material goodies?
It is incredibly hard to pass judgement on all of socialism when every "socialist" (to be loose) country, whether they claim to be a genuine article or a logical progression of Marxism, had just come from an incredibly weak production basis. All that I can say is, from your argument, that the workers of Britain's morale was incredibly low in the 19th century as compared to a fully fledge post-industrialist society - you're comparing and counterposing two totally different historical movements from very different historical and material bases. Say, let socialism reign for 500 years worldwide and then i'm sure we will be fit of passing any judgements on the system.
User avatar
By Truthseeker
#832918
Say, let socialism reign for 500 years worldwide and then i'm sure we will be fit of passing any judgements on the system.


But past socialist states have never gotten that far.

Most of those (which still exist) collapsed because of internal dissent and not external violence, that kind of thing can only happen when there is dissatisfaction.

I was extending a theory for why the people in those systems had felt so dissatisfied as to dismantle them without the need for the standard presumption that all socialist systems with always of necessity be failures.

If your a Marxist I should think you'd support this.[/quote]
User avatar
By C-Kokos
#832953
^The USSR was not overthrown by its people. It imploded on itself for reasons that exceed the purpose of this thread.

The early medieval republics of Novgorod in Russia and various cities in Italy also failed. So did the French revolution. This didn't stop capitalism from thriving today though.
By Shade2
#864371
First of all the "goverment" would put most of its energy towards basic demands, such as food, shelter, ect. It would not be wasted on other less important items that are common it capitalism.
Common like for example...toilet paper ?
Because it was a quite a luxury item during the days of communism in Poland.


The amount of suffering will increase considerably in a capitalistic country.

Not true. There was massive food shortage in Poland during communist time, with meat being scarce. There is no such thing now and in fact nobody really starves.
Last edited by Shade2 on 03 May 2006 19:48, edited 1 time in total.
By Luxemburgs_Pastry_Chef
#864826
When food production is criticised in regulated markets - it is always the issue that far too little is produced and that everybody is hungry - but isn't the agriculture of the most "free-markets" regukated and subsidised by the state quite heavily? Farmers are paid to meet quotas, farmers are paid not to grow too many crops. They do this, of course, in order to not destroy the primary sector of the economy and protect it from imploding due to the vast quantity of goods produced. It is common practice, for example, for farmers to contaminate perfectly good food, potatoes, with a purple dye making the crop inedible....just in the name of saving the market!
Is this not then an unfree market? Is this a planned economy?

I can just as simply say that the overproduction of food in Western Europe and the need for agricultural regulation is simply endemic of the free market fearing its own implosion, so selfish and bullheaded that such great amounts of food are destroyed whilst people go hungry on the streets of London. Oh yes, I will show you something that'll make you change your mind.

Not true. There was massive food shortage in Poland during communist time, with meat being scarce. There is no such thing now and in fact nobody really starves.


Explain the Bengali and Irish famines? Explain why the greater portion of the 19th Century Europeans lived in abject poverty. Post industrialism was borne out of a painful transitory period of starvation which kept the greater mass alive by their necessity for the capitalist system to thrive. Capitalism is built on blood, just as feudalism purged or assimilated the last "barbarous" celts from England.

Anyway, I haven't asked, what on earth does morale have to do with much anyway? I'm sure people more democratically aligned would be more willing to be proactive, as they have a more hands-on approach to governance...hence the socialisms on this board.
By Shade2
#864918
Explain why the greater portion of the 19th Century Europeans lived in abject poverty.

Explain while all people in communism lived in poverty and all wanted to escape to West.
Capitalism is built on blood,

I rather have prosperity built on blood then poverty.
By Getysburg
#864928
They did not live in poverty, they had guaranteed Jobs and necessities for life plus radios.

Why are you going on a polish-communism vendetta on this board?
By Shade2
#864937
They did not live in poverty, they had guaranteed Jobs and necessities for life plus radios.
LOL they had "radios". Such luxury.
What does poverty to you mean ? Does having heated water once a day for half an hour, electricity cut off every day for couple of hourse, toilet paper being luxury, no meat in shops constitute poverty ?
I guess not as long people are rich in communist propaganda manifests :lol:
Look life in socialism was such desperate that people made photos of western shops when they managed to get away to West.
By Luxemburgs_Pastry_Chef
#864965
And life in young capitalism was hurrendous and simply meant working for starvation rations - coming home....well...to a dank room filled with 7 other families, finding yourself prone to disease, prone to being sold badly made goods. The other choice was death, or worse - the workhouse.

Shade's argument proves nothing at all!
By Shade2
#864973
And life in young capitalism was hurrendous and simply meant working for starvation rations - coming home...

Except of course the situation was constantly improving and many poor people withe exceptional talents could improve their lives in signifcant way. Capitalism meant becoming rich and situation becoming better and better.
Socialism didn't offer those opportunities. No matter how hard you worked you never had any reward for this. It was all bleak, gray and meaningless. In fact it meant that quality of work was extremely low as nobody cared about his work.

Shade's argument proves nothing at all!

Sorry but it proves that people prefer to become rich rather then poor. :)Also that socialism doesn't offer to provide people's needs but capitalism does.
We abandoned socialism in 89. Toilet paper is no longer stolen by thieves at night from shops(and while it sounds funny, yes this happened)
Cheers.
By Luxemburgs_Pastry_Chef
#864991
You seem to confuse (for the majority) a relative an indirect benefit from an economy, "trickle down" if you please, and an absolute and direct benefit from an economy which would be socially minded and socially correct and on par with social co-operation rather than competition.

People have only appeared richer materially than in the past as a result of science in the affairs of technology and improvements, mass production etc. However, you still go home to a pile of debt - to a home which isn't yours, it is the banks, it is on lease, your work is not your own, your work is sold as a necessity from which that particular society thrives.

I don't particularly think that the Eastern Bloc is a fair representation of modern, rational planned economic theories, it's kinda like saying that the reason Venetian form of capitalism failed to expand the Venetian economy in all realms and to instate itself in every corner of the world was a fault of the idea itself - nothing to do with politics or how that particular model of economy works. Trial and error. It took the Dutch and then the English (then the British) to show the world how capitalism is done.

Except of course the situation was constantly improving and many poor people withe exceptional talents could improve their lives in signifcant way


The more people that tried to say, become trained engineers, had exactly the same effect on the market as a bunch of low-level labourers all competing for the same job. Thus you could have a hundred equally well trained pharmacists all competing for the same job as opposed to just 3 or 4. The lowest bidder "wins".
By Shade2
#865013
and an absolute and direct benefit from an economy which would be socially minded and socially correct and on par with social co-operation rather than competition.

So you believe genetic engineering is required ?
However, you still go home to a pile of debt - to a home which isn't yours, it is the banks, it is on lease,

My home is my own.

The more people that tried to say, become trained engineers, had exactly the same effect on the market as a bunch of low-level labourers all competing for the same job. Thus you could have a hundred equally well trained pharmacists all competing for the same job as opposed to just 3 or 4. The lowest bidder "wins".

Which doesn't contradict anything what I said, capitalism offers people to become rich which they want, socialism doesn't offer that.
User avatar
By Red Rebel
#865014
Shade2:
Not true. There was massive food shortage in Poland during communist time, with meat being scarce. There is no such thing now and in fact nobody really starves.


So the 17% of Polands population that is under the poverty line (currently), has enough food? Intresting.

Explain while all people in communism lived in poverty and all wanted to escape to West.


Lets see, the Warsaw Pact invested money into its people (ie education). They expected to get something back from them (such as new ideas to get ahead of the USA). But some went to the West for profit. The USSR was losing money and gaining nothing.

Except of course the situation was constantly improving and many poor people withe exceptional talents could improve their lives in signifcant way. Capitalism meant becoming rich and situation becoming better and better.


Possible? Yes. Plausable? No.

Socialism didn't offer those opportunities. No matter how hard you worked you never had any reward for this.


Basic principle of socialism:
From each according to their ability, to each according to their WORK.

Sorry but it proves that people prefer to become rich rather then poor.


Who doesn't want to be rich? No one. Unfortunatly, we all can't be rich. So rather then a few being rich and many many being poor; people can be more equal under socialism and communism.
By Luxemburgs_Pastry_Chef
#865051
So you believe genetic engineering is required ?


Why did you choose to pluck this out of the ether?

My home is my own.


Yet you still have to pay to live in it - mortgages and tax. The house is only credited to you, not owned by you...unless you're relatively super-rich.

Which doesn't contradict anything what I said, capitalism offers people to become rich which they want, socialism doesn't offer that.


You missed the point of what I was saying, perhaps I wasn't clear enough. No matter whatsoever of your own personal skill under capitalism you are not guaranteed to flourish at all - you are subjected to human elements, potential workers, competing for the same place at work. Rich as whose expense? Unless the wealth of the world was created for the sole reason of the capitalist merely existing, which would be an impossibility.
"Britain's" wealth was built on death, blood, sweat and tears, not merely on a passively active class of people.

Again, this is not worthy of debate, nor is it on[…]

You don’t see anything wrong with renters determi[…]

So, we have evidence that migrants often voted in […]

it is very difficult to determine who the stupid[…]