As it was under socialism. Organized crime thrived
in the USSR because the black markets were needed
for survival. The corruption spanned all classes.
When they ditched socialism, the criminal element
filled the vacuum created by collapse of the state
Socialism made Russia what it is today.
There were black markets and gray markets at a lower level, but there's very little evidence of any actual "organized crime." The streets were incredibly safe for the citizenry, even in large cities - day or night. After the dissolution of the USSR, the remnants of the old KGB morphed into what became known as the "Russian Mafia," which is the main reason why a small percentage of Muscovites are doing quite well for themselves under the current regime. But that's definitely not true for the vast majority of Russians today.
Still missing the point, eh.
I prefer the system that gives the best results.
You're arguing the irrelevant point that a particular
socialist system is better than a particularly bad
capitalist one.
Oh, I get the point you're trying to make pretty well. As you say, you prefer the system that gives the best results, but I think that point is based on an erroneous premise. You seem to believe that a country's success or failure is based solely on an abstract "system" - and nothing else.
Your basic argument implies that one can ignore the location of a country, their climate, percentage of arable land, their availability of year-round seaports, their proximity to powerful countries which are enemies, the size of the population, the availability/accessibility of resources, history of invasion/exploitation, history of classist tyranny, the general state of infrastructure/industry under the previous regime, and the general standard of living and overall condition of the country at the time the "system" was implemented.
You deem all of that "irrelevant" (as if you can make such grand proclamations), and keep insisting that it's all about the "system" and nothing else. I reject the entire premise of your argument and the line of reasoning leading up to it.
If, according to you, the United States produced better results, it was more due to luck than anything else. Don't get me wrong; I like living in the United States and I was raised in a patriotic family. I was reminded on a near daily basis how lucky and fortunate I was to be born in America, and perhaps that might be true. Some people even suggest that America has been blessed by God. I don't believe that, of course, but in my opinion, even that's a more probable explanation for America's good fortune than anything we can attribute to a magical "system."
You're not coming out to say so, but I suspect you
believe the USSR to be better (per your goals &
values) than any capitalist country. To openly
declare that would be hard to defend indeed.
Ah, your inner McCarthy is showing through.
Nevertheless, I never argued or claimed that the USSR was "better" than any capitalist country. I know that the United States was materially, industrially, and technologically better off than numerous countries, particularly in the decades immediately following WW2, when most of the world was devastated - except for us.
The USSR and China both suffered extremely in that war, far more than any other participant in that conflict. Despite that enormous handicap (which we didn't have), they still rose from the ashes and became formidable adversaries of the West in a relatively short period of time. They didn't get there by sitting on their butts and doing nothing.
