Was USSR communist or socialist?

Stevicus · Apr 4, 2017

Repox said:
You ignore reality. Because of capitalism, standards of living and the quality of life has increased for middles classes in most capitalist nations. Just walk down the street of an average suburban community in most capitalist nations and you'll see higher living standards, higher home ownership, and higher quality of life than most communist or socialist nations since WWII. .

Communist Russian did remarkable worse than the US, or other capitalist nations, after WWII. Now Russia is in an economic tailspin after the demise of the USSR. After WWII, the USSR never achieved the same level of economic success as did the US or other capitalist nations.

I think Marxists suffer from delusions of grandeur. Ha. Ha.

You say that I ignore reality? You just ignored the points I made showing how communism improved China, Russia, and Cuba far above what they were under capitalism.

And your comparison is faulty when you say "most" capitalist nations. The high living standards such as in the US are only experienced by a relative few capitalist nations, while "most" capitalist nations are in the region known as the developing world (aka the "third world"), where conditions and living standards are quite horrid.

Repox · Apr 4, 2017

Stevicus said:
You say that I ignore reality? You just ignored the points I made showing how communism improved China, Russia, and Cuba far above what they were under capitalism.

And your comparison is faulty when you say "most" capitalist nations. The high living standards such as in the US are only experienced by a relative few capitalist nations, while "most" capitalist nations are in the region known as the developing world (aka the "third world"), where conditions and living standards are quite horrid.

You didn't score points, you distorted facts. You ignore higher standards of living and higher wages for US and other Capitalist workers compared to those in communist or socialist nations.

Repox · Apr 4, 2017

Repox said:
You ignore the higher standards of living for US and other Capitalist workers compared to those in communist or socialist nations.

Repox said:
You didn't score points, you distorted facts. You ignore higher standards of living and higher wages for US and other Capitalist workers compared to those in communist or socialist nations. Apparently, you have never visited a US city or suburb.

Too really understand the wealth and prosperity of US workers look at the US stock exchange where they have their retirement money. Then, look a foreign markets in socialist and communist nations. See the differences?

Stevicus · Apr 4, 2017

Repox said:
You didn't score points, you distorted facts. You ignore higher standards of living and higher wages for US and other Capitalist workers compared to those in communist or socialist nations.

I don't know if you're just being willfully disingenuous here or what, but all you're doing is repeating yourself and not even making the slightest attempt to answer any of my arguments or points.

Do you have anything new to bring to the discussion, or have we reached the end of your repertoire?

Repox · Apr 4, 2017

Stevicus said:
I don't know if you're just being willfully disingenuous here or what, but all you're doing is repeating yourself and not even making the slightest attempt to answer any of my arguments or points.

Do you have anything new to bring to the discussion, or have we reached the end of your repertoire?

Your kidding, right. First you distorted history giving a lot of false ideas about how the USSR and Red China had achieved so much, etc. Then, you expect me to believe the BS. Really, do you think I am that stupid? You have ignored my examples and arguments because you're a typical Marxist, you distort and, then, you distort some more. Sorry, I've seen it before. You do what Marx proposed, "fool them if you can."

Before you leave, explain why the US stock market, an indicator for capitalism, is soaring way higher than any socialist or communist nation has ever achieved, or imagined. Do you know the relationship between stock wealth and capitalism? Being a Marxist, I'll bet you don't know.

Again, here is my stock market statement. Facts can sometimes be a disturbing thing.

Too really understand the wealth and prosperity of US workers look at the US stock exchange where they have their retirement money. Then, look a foreign markets in socialist and communist nations. See the differences?

Stevicus · Apr 5, 2017

Repox said:
Your kidding, right. First you distorted history giving a lot of false ideas about how the USSR and Red China had achieved so much, etc. Then, you expect me to believe the BS. Really, do you think I am that stupid? You have ignored my examples and arguments because you're a typical Marxist, you distort and, then, you distort some more. Sorry, I've seen it before. You do what Marx proposed, "fool them if you can."

Before you leave, explain why the US stock market, an indicator for capitalism, is soaring way higher than any socialist or communist nation has ever achieved, or imagined. Do you know the relationship between stock wealth and capitalism? Being a Marxist, I'll bet you don't know.

Again, here is my stock market statement. Facts can sometimes be a disturbing thing.

Too really understand the wealth and prosperity of US workers look at the US stock exchange where they have their retirement money. Then, look a foreign markets in socialist and communist nations. See the differences?

I don't know if I would consider myself a Marxist. If it makes you happy to call me that, then go ahead. I don't mind.

I don't expect you to believe anything I say. If you think it's BS, then you're free to address it and give some sort of coherent argument against it. But you haven't made any honest attempt to do that, so where does that leave the discussion? At a dead end.

All you've really done over the course of this discussion is say that the US standard of living is better than that of Russia, which I haven't denied one bit.

Where we disagree is on why the US has a better standard of living than Russia (or that of most of the world's nations). You say it's because of a "system" - and only a "system." According to your logic, one "system" will always produce wealth and prosperity, while the other "system" will always produce squalor and deprivation (and gulags). And that's about it. Everything always revolves around the theoretical, abstract "system" in your mind - that's your idea of "reality."

The "system" is a religion. It is a belief. It is not reality.

There are historical and very real reasons why the US has a relatively better standard of living and greater wealth than that of the USSR or other nations - but I would suggest that very little of it has anything to do with the abstract "system" you speak of.

Repox · Apr 5, 2017

Stevicus said:
I don't know if I would consider myself a Marxist. If it makes you happy to call me that, then go ahead. I don't mind.

I don't expect you to believe anything I say. If you think it's BS, then you're free to address it and give some sort of coherent argument against it. But you haven't made any honest attempt to do that, so where does that leave the discussion? At a dead end.

All you've really done over the course of this discussion is say that the US standard of living is better than that of Russia, which I haven't denied one bit.

Where we disagree is on why the US has a better standard of living than Russia (or that of most of the world's nations). You say it's because of a "system" - and only a "system." According to your logic, one "system" will always produce wealth and prosperity, while the other "system" will always produce squalor and deprivation (and gulags). And that's about it. Everything always revolves around the theoretical, abstract "system" in your mind - that's your idea of "reality."

The "system" is a religion. It is a belief. It is not reality.

There are historical and very real reasons why the US has a relatively better standard of living and greater wealth than that of the USSR or other nations - but I would suggest that very little of it has anything to do with the abstract "system" you speak of.

I have listed many examples for the superiority of capitalism. It is all there on my postings. You replied about my argument for the USSR and Red China communist aggression. You stated those wars were won by the aggressors, so it shows communist successes. Well, is that really true? North Korea is a basket case as an economic powerhouse, its economy is in shambles and its people are starving. It's dictator must threaten the world with nuclear annihilation to get attention. As for South Vietnam, it has turned into a capitalist nation to become a vibrant economy.

Though the authority of the state remained unchallenged under Đổi Mới, the government encouraged private ownership of farms and factories, economic deregulation and foreign investment, while maintaining control over strategic industries.[76] The Vietnamese economy subsequently achieved strong growth in agricultural and industrial production, construction, exports and foreign investment. However, these reforms have also caused a rise in income inequality and gender disparities.[77][78][79]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam

We know about Russia and its tanking economy. Then, there is China the land of hypocrites. The Chinese government is communist, there are no democrat government institutions or free elections. Then, to feed its people it makes thousands of products for the US and other capitalist nations by applying advanced technology from those same capitalist nations. As for Cuba, its economy is in shambles. As for Venezuela, its communist government is failing as its economy goes into a tailspin.

There are good reasons why those capitalist nations I mentioned have thrived. Those economies are not entangled with endless and useless government bureaucracies characteristic of communist or socialist nations. It is difficult to be innovation or change oriented when there is only "one political party," and that party manages and controls the economy. Furthermore, it is difficult for those economies to function when government bureaucrats have little or no understanding of the technology or expertise required for companies to produce and compete.

Stevicus · Apr 5, 2017

Repox said:
I have listed many examples for the superiority of capitalism. It is all there on my postings. You replied about my argument for the USSR and Red China communist aggression. You stated those wars were won by the aggressors, so it shows communist successes. Well, is that really true? North Korea is a basket case as an economic powerhouse, its economy is in shambles and its people are starving. It's dictator must threaten the world with nuclear annihilation to get attention. As for South Vietnam, it has turned into a capitalist nation to become a vibrant economy.

Though the authority of the state remained unchallenged under Đổi Mới, the government encouraged private ownership of farms and factories, economic deregulation and foreign investment, while maintaining control over strategic industries.[76] The Vietnamese economy subsequently achieved strong growth in agricultural and industrial production, construction, exports and foreign investment. However, these reforms have also caused a rise in income inequality and gender disparities.[77][78][79]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam

We know about Russia and its tanking economy. Then, there is China the land of hypocrites. The Chinese government is communist, there are no democrat government institutions or free elections. Then, to feed its people it makes thousands of products for the US and other capitalist nations by applying advanced technology from those same capitalist nations. As for Cuba, its economy is in shambles. As for Venezuela, its communist government is failing as its economy goes into a tailspin.

There are good reasons why those capitalist nations I mentioned have thrived. Those economies are not entangled with endless and useless government bureaucracies characteristic of communist or socialist nations. It is difficult to be innovation or change oriented when there is only "one political party," and that party manages and controls the economy. Furthermore, it is difficult for those economies to function when government bureaucrats have little or no understanding of the technology or expertise required for companies to produce and compete.

Well, again, you're talking past the points I made just to regurgitate the same "systemic" arguments.

I pointed out that Russia and China were both vastly improved under communism than they were under their previous capitalist governments. You did not deny this, nor did you attempt to prove otherwise, so I take this as meaning that you've conceded the point. This means that you are admitting that communism improves the society for the better - at least better than it was under capitalism.

All you've pointed out is that the USA has a better standard of living than those countries, but we had a better standard of living back when Russia and China were capitalist, so that doesn't prove a thing. Repeating it over and over still doesn't prove anything. Vietnam, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea - they were all worse off than the USA when those countries were still capitalist, so to say that they're still worse than the USA today is not an argument at all. You'll have to come up with something more solid to convince me.

Strictly speaking, since you've stated that you favor laissez-faire capitalism, you'd be intellectually dishonest to extol the greatness of the US system from 1940 - 1980, since the US system at its peak was a mixed economy combining elements of capitalism and socialism (Keynesianism). Laissez-faire capitalists can't take any credit for that, since it's an economic system which they have rigidly opposed and roundly criticized, which led to their support of Reaganomics and his "trickle down" theory which turned out to be a complete dud.

Shadow Wolf · Apr 5, 2017

Repox said:
The only "new model" I see is people downsizing to a lower standard of living because of advanced technology displacing them.

If we don't have marketing and advertising creating artificial demands, we could actually all have more of what we need and want by having less of what is really junk. Doing away with planned obsoletion alone would make at least a hefty impact. Making stuff to have easily interchangeable and upgradeable parts, especially when 3D printing reaches a level where mass manufacturing is no longer necessary once we can make nearly anything in smaller "per order" batches.

Repox said:
Those social systems don't work in large urban environments where mass productivity requires efficient and skillful applications of human capital

That "skillful application" is people doing highly repetitive, meanial tasks for hours on end that require no real skill or talent. Factories are really nothing more than a sum of wasted human potential, especially now when machines can do it for us now.

Repox said:
mass assemble lines to maintain high productivity rates for highly competitive markets.

Those days are coming to an end. But only if we shed the past and embrace the future, because the future is now.

Repox said:
The days of mass assembly line workers making more money than school teachers, police officers, and store clerks is coming to an end.

Store clerk likely not, but in all reality teachers and police officers should make more. One carries the future one their shoulders, the others carry the safety and security of entire communities on theirs. Teachers especially should be amoungst our wealthiest and highest paid (albeit with much higher standards).

Repox said:
Soon, as unions become a smaller segment of the workforce, people will have to settle for less.

This I do agree with. I grew up near a "Union town," and those Chrysler and Delco/Delphi workers used to make some huge bucks and were huge spenders.

Repox said:
I don't see much optimism for either maintaining high standards of living or in increasing one's quality of live, unless, of course, we change the meaning of "quality of life."

We'd probably have to first define "quality of life." I do not consider a new iPhone with every other year necessary for a good quality of life. A quality and rounded enough education and assistance getting employment, health care, and food and shelter, those things I consider necessary for a good quality of life. A 50-inch 4k ultra and gas guzzling SUV, those are really only wastes of life and you may need a hobby (or a better one) if you're really that concerned about picture clarity to that degree. However, I do consider at least a very basic computer with internet a necessary born of our current age that minimally expects you to have an email address, and very increasingly regular internet access.

Repox · Apr 6, 2017

Stevicus said:
Well, again, you're talking past the points I made just to regurgitate the same "systemic" arguments.

I pointed out that Russia and China were both vastly improved under communism than they were under their previous capitalist governments. You did not deny this, nor did you attempt to prove otherwise, so I take this as meaning that you've conceded the point. This means that you are admitting that communism improves the society for the better - at least better than it was under capitalism.

All you've pointed out is that the USA has a better standard of living than those countries, but we had a better standard of living back when Russia and China were capitalist, so that doesn't prove a thing. Repeating it over and over still doesn't prove anything. Vietnam, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea - they were all worse off than the USA when those countries were still capitalist, so to say that they're still worse than the USA today is not an argument at all. You'll have to come up with something more solid to convince me.

Strictly speaking, since you've stated that you favor laissez-faire capitalism, you'd be intellectually dishonest to extol the greatness of the US system from 1940 - 1980, since the US system at its peak was a mixed economy combining elements of capitalism and socialism (Keynesianism). Laissez-faire capitalists can't take any credit for that, since it's an economic system which they have rigidly opposed and roundly criticized, which led to their support of Reaganomics and his "trickle down" theory which turned out to be a complete dud.

It is amazing, I presented a historically accurate picture of the failures of communist and socialist economies, and what is your reply?. You stated, "Strictly speaking, since you've stated that you favor laissez-faire capitalism, you'd be intellectually dishonest to extol the greatness of the US system from 1940 - 1980, since the US system at its peak was a mixed economy combining elements of capitalism and socialism (Keynesianism)." The US economy has never been socialistic. Perhaps under President Obama you could say the government was drifting toward socialism. As for the economy, the government has not, as found in socialist nations, owned all the land, corporations, or private property. Check the ownership of land in the US and major US corporations (Microsoft, Apple, Ford, GMC, DuPont, IBM, Yahoo, Amazon, etc.) and you will find they are not owned, and have not been owned by the US government. It is useless to point these most obvious facts, you will distort it.

You cannot present Russia as a model of Communism because there is no evidence. If you compare the Czar's regime to other capitalist nations for the period, you would conclude it was not a poor capitalist nation. As per the collapse of the USSR, it is evidence of one of the largest socialist economies failing.

You stated, "Vietnam, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea - they were all worse off than the USA when those countries were still capitalist, so to say that they're still worse than the USA today is not an argument at all." As I pointed out, Vietnam as become a capitalist economy. The economies of Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea were better off before communist revolutions. Now those economies are in shambles. As for China, we know it has employed capitalism to its economic sector in order to maintain high levels of efficiency and productive. Go ahead do you distorted presentation for those economies. Present your false ideas about the magnificent performance of communism and socialism. We both know, however, facts are a terrible thing, especially historical facts, they'll come back and bite you.

Stevicus · Apr 7, 2017

Repox said:
It is amazing, I presented a historically accurate picture of the failures of communist and socialist economies, and what is your reply?. You stated, "Strictly speaking, since you've stated that you favor laissez-faire capitalism, you'd be intellectually dishonest to extol the greatness of the US system from 1940 - 1980, since the US system at its peak was a mixed economy combining elements of capitalism and socialism (Keynesianism)." The US economy has never been socialistic. Perhaps under President Obama you could say the government was drifting toward socialism. As for the economy, the government has not, as found in socialist nations, owned all the land, corporations, or private property. Check the ownership of land in the US and major US corporations (Microsoft, Apple, Ford, GMC, DuPont, IBM, Yahoo, Amazon, etc.) and you will find they are not owned, and have not been owned by the US government. It is useless to point these most obvious facts, you will distort it.

Look, you're the one who has been distorting facts and ducking arguments here. I can't believe you're accusing me of doing things that you're doing. But let's leave that aside.

Also, I said that the US economy from FDR until Reagan was a mixed economy which included elements of socialism and capitalism. It was not totally socialist nor totally capitalist. Since you have stated that you favor laissez-faire capitalism, then that means that you do not favor the economic system associated with Keynsianism, which is what we had during those years. I didn't say that the economy was "socialistic," although some critics of FDR and Truman thought along those lines.

What are your views of FDR's New Deal or of Keynesian economics in general?

I also don't agree that Obama's policies were drifting towards socialism, not even close. Nixon, a Keynesian who believed in price controls, was probably more "socialistic" than Obama was. If Obama really was as much a socialist as some people say he was, he would have imposed price controls on the healthcare industry to control costs. The fact that he did not even propose it was very telling about the kind of economic system he supported. Not only is not a socialist, I have my doubts as to whether he's even a true liberal. Many liberals referred to Obama as "Bush Lite," since he was just another Democratic phony, just like the Clintons.

You cannot present Russia as a model of Communism because there is no evidence. If you compare the Czar's regime to other capitalist nations for the period, you would conclude it was not a poor capitalist nation. As per the collapse of the USSR, it is evidence of one of the largest socialist economies failing.

This just sounds like more double talk. As I said, the evidence is clear. Capitalist Russia suffered defeat in WW1, while the same exact nation was victorious under a different economic system in WW2. If comparing and contrasting the results of two major wars is not enough evidence for you, then either you're being totally disingenuous or intentionally obtuse.

The least you could do is at least try to answer the arguments and points I've made.

You stated, "Vietnam, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea - they were all worse off than the USA when those countries were still capitalist, so to say that they're still worse than the USA today is not an argument at all." As I pointed out, Vietnam as become a capitalist economy.

It appears that Vietnam is following the path of China, which (according to you) is "hypocritical."

The economies of Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea were better off before communist revolutions.

Venezuela never had a communist revolution. Cuba's economy was far worse under Batista, when it was nothing more than a giant brothel and playground for wealthy capitalist pedophiles and perverts. It was a horrific mess. As for North Korea, they were under Japanese occupation for decades and suffered as an exploited colony and didn't have much of an economy at all when the Korean Peninsula was divided by the Allied Powers.

Now those economies are in shambles.

It's just a matter of economic priorities. Venezuela was never really communist, so I wouldn't even count them. Cuba has been surviving, even if not very luxuriously. They're still likely better off than their capitalist peer nations in Latin America, which have also had their economies in shambles. Another point you managed to duck was about most of the immigrants to the US actually coming from capitalist countries, such as Mexico. If capitalism is so great, why is Mexico facing such dismal conditions that force millions of its citizens to cross treacherous mountain ranges and burning deserts to come here just so they can do menial jobs at below minimum wage?

I won't deny that these socialist countries have economic problems, but unlike you, I'm willing to look beyond the surface and try to determine what it is about the inner workings of these systems that create the problems. You say "it's just the system" and leave it at that.

As for China, we know it has employed capitalism to its economic sector in order to maintain high levels of efficiency and productive. Go ahead do you distorted presentation for those economies. Present your false ideas about the magnificent performance of communism and socialism. We both know, however, facts are a terrible thing, especially historical facts, they'll come back and bite you.

Well, again, if you think they're "false ideas," then it should be relatively easy for you to address them and refute them - something that you've been either unwilling or unable to do during the course of this entire discussion.

As for historical facts, I think I've laid them out quite honestly and openly. Pre-Revolutionary Russia and China were disastrous, virtually non-functional economies with widespread squalor, misery, illiteracy, oppression - not to mention sheer incompetence and impotence at their inability to even defend their own country. Compared to the United States, both societies were much, much worse in nearly every category. Within a few years after the revolutionary dust settled, their regimes did manage to rebuild their countries, cleaned things up, and were able to reach some level of productivity and self-sufficiency. Their literacy rates and level of education improved by leaps and bounds. They sent the first satellite into orbit and the first human into space.

These are all factual arguments which you could have addressed in earnest, but all you've come back with is "they're still not better the United States" And I haven't denied that, but my point is that it's irrelevant to the argument I was making. That's the main problem with your entire line of argumentation, since you keep throwing irrelevancies and non-sequiturs into the discussion which make no sense.

All I'm really arguing is that, for that particular time and place, communism improved their society over what they had before. Communism could be viewed as an extreme reaction to an extreme situation, since that's what they were facing at the time. In the US and other Western societies, things were never quite that "extreme," although we came close enough that wiser people were able to bring about reforms that restrained capitalism for the sake of national well-being and political stability. It took active government involvement in order to bring about this stability; it wasn't something that "just happened" in laissez-faire style.

A lot of people today, most of whom were born after WW2 and have only really seen the result of restrained capitalism, seem to forget all of the struggles that people went through from the Civil War to the labor movement to the civil rights movement when they extol the virtues of "capitalism" and seemingly want to remove all the reforms, protections, and social programs which have maintained things thus far. They're dead set against anything and everything that might even be seen as remotely "socialistic." That's the problem at hand. I don't want America to have a communist government, but I don't think we should revert back to the days of the 19th century and the economic system we had back then. That would be going backwards.

Repox · Apr 7, 2017

Stevicus said:
Look, you're the one who has been distorting facts and ducking arguments here. I can't believe you're accusing me of doing things that you're doing. But let's leave that aside.

Also, I said that the US economy from FDR until Reagan was a mixed economy which included elements of socialism and capitalism. It was not totally socialist nor totally capitalist. Since you have stated that you favor laissez-faire capitalism, then that means that you do not favor the economic system associated with Keynsianism, which is what we had during those years. I didn't say that the economy was "socialistic," although some critics of FDR and Truman thought along those lines.

What are your views of FDR's New Deal or of Keynesian economics in general?

I also don't agree that Obama's policies were drifting towards socialism, not even close. Nixon, a Keynesian who believed in price controls, was probably more "socialistic" than Obama was. If Obama really was as much a socialist as some people say he was, he would have imposed price controls on the healthcare industry to control costs. The fact that he did not even propose it was very telling about the kind of economic system he supported. Not only is not a socialist, I have my doubts as to whether he's even a true liberal. Many liberals referred to Obama as "Bush Lite," since he was just another Democratic phony, just like the Clintons.

This just sounds like more double talk. As I said, the evidence is clear. Capitalist Russia suffered defeat in WW1, while the same exact nation was victorious under a different economic system in WW2. If comparing and contrasting the results of two major wars is not enough evidence for you, then either you're being totally disingenuous or intentionally obtuse.

The least you could do is at least try to answer the arguments and points I've made.

It appears that Vietnam is following the path of China, which (according to you) is "hypocritical."

Venezuela never had a communist revolution. Cuba's economy was far worse under Batista, when it was nothing more than a giant brothel and playground for wealthy capitalist pedophiles and perverts. It was a horrific mess. As for North Korea, they were under Japanese occupation for decades and suffered as an exploited colony and didn't have much of an economy at all when the Korean Peninsula was divided by the Allied Powers.

It's just a matter of economic priorities. Venezuela was never really communist, so I wouldn't even count them. Cuba has been surviving, even if not very luxuriously. They're still likely better off than their capitalist peer nations in Latin America, which have also had their economies in shambles. Another point you managed to duck was about most of the immigrants to the US actually coming from capitalist countries, such as Mexico. If capitalism is so great, why is Mexico facing such dismal conditions that force millions of its citizens to cross treacherous mountain ranges and burning deserts to come here just so they can do menial jobs at below minimum wage?

I won't deny that these socialist countries have economic problems, but unlike you, I'm willing to look beyond the surface and try to determine what it is about the inner workings of these systems that create the problems. You say "it's just the system" and leave it at that.

Well, again, if you think they're "false ideas," then it should be relatively easy for you to address them and refute them - something that you've been either unwilling or unable to do during the course of this entire discussion.

As for historical facts, I think I've laid them out quite honestly and openly. Pre-Revolutionary Russia and China were disastrous, virtually non-functional economies with widespread squalor, misery, illiteracy, oppression - not to mention sheer incompetence and impotence at their inability to even defend their own country. Compared to the United States, both societies were much, much worse in nearly every category. Within a few years after the revolutionary dust settled, their regimes did manage to rebuild their countries, cleaned things up, and were able to reach some level of productivity and self-sufficiency. Their literacy rates and level of education improved by leaps and bounds. They sent the first satellite into orbit and the first human into space.

These are all factual arguments which you could have addressed in earnest, but all you've come back with is "they're still not better the United States" And I haven't denied that, but my point is that it's irrelevant to the argument I was making. That's the main problem with your entire line of argumentation, since you keep throwing irrelevancies and non-sequiturs into the discussion which make no sense.

All I'm really arguing is that, for that particular time and place, communism improved their society over what they had before. Communism could be viewed as an extreme reaction to an extreme situation, since that's what they were facing at the time. In the US and other Western societies, things were never quite that "extreme," although we came close enough that wiser people were able to bring about reforms that restrained capitalism for the sake of national well-being and political stability. It took active government involvement in order to bring about this stability; it wasn't something that "just happened" in laissez-faire style.

A lot of people today, most of whom were born after WW2 and have only really seen the result of restrained capitalism, seem to forget all of the struggles that people went through from the Civil War to the labor movement to the civil rights movement when they extol the virtues of "capitalism" and seemingly want to remove all the reforms, protections, and social programs which have maintained things thus far. They're dead set against anything and everything that might even be seen as remotely "socialistic." That's the problem at hand. I don't want America to have a communist government, but I don't think we should revert back to the days of the 19th century and the economic system we had back then. That would be going backwards.

"You stated, "I won't deny that these socialist countries have economic problems, but unlike you, I'm willing to look beyond the surface and try to determine what it is about the inner workings of these systems that create the problems. You say "it's just the system" and leave it at that."

I haven't said it is just the system. I have pointed out how stifling is a communist or socialist government for the economy because it has burdensome and inflexible rules and regulations which don't allow for firms to achieve efficiencies or high levels of productivity. In today's competitive world technology, requiring specialization and experience, is moving rapidly. Firms must operate without government interference, or without government ideology to dictate beliefs or allegiances. The computer revelation in the US would never have happened if Washington politicians had to approve and administer each new invention or technological innovation.

Here is a clear statement of what most "objective" observers state about communism and socialism. Throughout history there have been experiments with utopian societies. Based on the evidence, they don't really work. In theory, they look good. Everyone shares in common, it is for the good of the state which serves the people, etc. Then, it fails. A dedicated Marxist would say, it is a matter of time, and we will get it right!

Communism and socialism are economic and political structures that promote equality and seek to eliminate social classes. Sometimes, the two are used interchangeably, though they are quite different. In theory, socialism and communism sound appealing, with everyone doing their share and working together to provide for the greater good. Each utilizes a planned production schedule to ensure the needs of all community members are met. They are utopian economic structures that some countries have tried; however, most have failed or become dictatorships, making reform nearly impossible.

What is the difference between Communism and Socialism?

Repox · Apr 13, 2017

The key for understanding the underpinnings of any social order is whether or not it fulfills humans needs. I have proposed communism to be antithetical to human nature. Therefore, communist forms of government or social orders fail. For communist social orders which appear to survive, capitalistic institutions, small businesses and private property, appear to prop up the otherwise failing communist governments, as suggested by Sartre. The basic premise for this argument is Communist, as proposed by Karl Marx, proposes a form of utopianism, which violates basic assumptions of human nature. In the real world, we cannot find social equality. In all areas of social activity, we find a hierarchy of social differences. Athletics is an excellent area for testing the social equality hypothesis. In sporting events, there are winners and losers. We can also analysis other areas of social activity. Where do we find actual situations of equality? Yes, governments may propose equality of opportunity, but when people seek opportunities, they endeavor to compete in order to gain advantages or to achieve their goals.

How about religious activities? Clerics may say we are equal in the eyes of God, but in practice, church criteria designate good versus bad moral conduct. Religions apply religious tests based on moral treatises or Godly commandments for determining righteousness versus sinfulness. In churches, we have a hierarchy of clerics (priests, bishops, archbishops, bishops, and the Pope). In theory, we have equality before God, but, in practice, we have moral hierarchies.

Repox · Apr 13, 2017

Shadow Wolf said:
You do realize mass manufacturing is unsustainable, don't you? These "competitive markets," they are depleting the planet's resources faster than it can replenish them.

That was hundreds of years ago. It's time to move on to new models and new revolutions.

The only way to stop mass manufacturing is for government to institute constraints. Otherwise, we don't find capitalists putting on the brakes. Free markets infer mass production to compete in the global marketplace. I don't see a solution. Even if you have government control, the marketplace will dictate efficient (mass assembly lines} uses of capital. Hey, maybe we can find another planet with more resources to exploit. Not a happy thought, but we can we do? Capitalists don't like government to over regulate or control the economy.

Shadow Wolf · Apr 13, 2017

Repox said:
The only way to stop mass manufacturing is for government to institute constraints.

Or we just run out of resources.

Repox · Apr 13, 2017

Shadow Wolf said:
Or we just run out of resources.

Probably run out of resources. Then, maybe we will be back with nature, although it will be with dogs and wolfs eager to regain their territory. Is there no hope?

Stevicus · Apr 13, 2017

Repox said:
The key for understanding the underpinnings of any social order is whether or not it fulfills humans needs. I have proposed communism to be antithetical to human nature. Therefore, communist forms of government or social orders fail. For communist social orders which appear to survive, capitalistic institutions, small businesses and private property, appear to prop up the otherwise failing communist governments, as suggested by Sartre. The basic premise for this argument is Communist, as proposed by Karl Marx, proposes a form of utopianism, which violates basic assumptions of human nature. In the real world, we cannot find social equality. In all areas of social activity, we find a hierarchy of social differences. Athletics is an excellent area for testing the social equality hypothesis. In sporting events, there are winners and losers. We can also analysis other areas of social activity. Where do we find actual situations of equality? Yes, governments may propose equality of opportunity, but when people seek opportunities, they endeavor to compete in order to gain advantages or to achieve their goals.

How about religious activities? Clerics may say we are equal in the eyes of God, but in practice, church criteria designate good versus bad moral conduct. Religions apply religious tests based on moral treatises or Godly commandments for determining righteousness versus sinfulness. In churches, we have a hierarchy of clerics (priests, bishops, archbishops, bishops, and the Pope). In theory, we have equality before God, but, in practice, we have moral hierarchies.

I don't think it's really about "total equality" though. You may be looking at it too literally, since it's more related to equal treatment, equal rights before the law - that sort of thing. We're all human beings, and at least on a certain fundamental level, we're all basically the same. But it doesn't exclude the idea that some people may be smarter, stronger, faster, more ambitious, etc.

There will always be some level of competition and a social hierarchy of one sort or another, but cooperation is also important. I don't think anything can be utopian, but humans are also social animals. That's also part of our nature to cooperate with each other and even make compromises or sacrifices for the greater good. I don't agree that it "violates" human nature, although perhaps it unrealistically appeals to the higher parts of human nature. It may point up a fatal flaw within Marxism, or it could be a fatal flaw in our species. Our drive to compete and wallow in the baser parts of our "nature" have definitely had a downside.

If we could make it more "friendly" competition, then that would be much better. It's when it becomes too unfriendly that problems start up.

Repox · Apr 13, 2017

Stevicus said:
I don't think it's really about "total equality" though. You may be looking at it too literally, since it's more related to equal treatment, equal rights before the law - that sort of thing. We're all human beings, and at least on a certain fundamental level, we're all basically the same. But it doesn't exclude the idea that some people may be smarter, stronger, faster, more ambitious, etc.

There will always be some level of competition and a social hierarchy of one sort or another, but cooperation is also important. I don't think anything can be utopian, but humans are also social animals. That's also part of our nature to cooperate with each other and even make compromises or sacrifices for the greater good. I don't agree that it "violates" human nature, although perhaps it unrealistically appeals to the higher parts of human nature. It may point up a fatal flaw within Marxism, or it could be a fatal flaw in our species. Our drive to compete and wallow in the baser parts of our "nature" have definitely had a downside.

If we could make it more "friendly" competition, then that would be much better. It's when it becomes too unfriendly that problems start up.

We may kind of look alike, but group related actions produce individual differences as people tend to differentiate themselves to gain some degree of social recognition. I agree with your statement, "Our drive to compete and wallow in the baser parts of our "nature" have definitely had a downside." Unfortunately, humans have a competitive nature, with little proclivity to cooperate, unless it is for individual gains or rewards.

Frolicking_Fox · Apr 14, 2017

sovietchild said:
As growing up in USA I always herd communist this and communist that, and USSR was a communist state, but was they really a communist state?

Is communism reachable? Communism is just a higher level of socialism. Right? Was there ever been a country that reached the communist level?

The reason the USSR collapsed is because they, a Socialist state, tried to implement Capitalism back into their society.

Was USSR communist or socialist?

Stevicus

Veteran Member

Repox

Truth Seeker

Repox

Truth Seeker

Stevicus

Veteran Member

Repox

Truth Seeker

Stevicus

Veteran Member

Repox

Truth Seeker

Stevicus

Veteran Member

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber

Repox

Truth Seeker

Stevicus

Veteran Member

Repox

Truth Seeker

Repox

Truth Seeker

Repox

Truth Seeker

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber

Repox

Truth Seeker

Stevicus

Veteran Member

Repox

Truth Seeker

Frolicking_Fox

Artemis, Athena, and Buddha. Anarcho-Communist.