Communism: Persuade Me

[Vetalia]

Very, very true.

My area of specialty is the socialist economies during their golden age (1950's-1970's), but even then an astute observer can see the cracks in the wall. Their economic performance was fairly impressive, but it came at a cost that would catch up with them; if anything, the failure of socialist economies was their inability to keep up with technology as in capitalist countries.

Of course, cultural stasis played a role as well; I saw some socialist-era advertisements from the USSR and it was amazing how they were stuck in the 1950's/1960's aesthetically. It's not coincidental that this period was as close as they came to market economics and freedom of expression in their entire history, I suppose.

[Valtieres]

Sibirsky, your reality is far different from that of millions of Russians. From all the ones I've known, none of them admire or even acknowledge ANY benefits that they have recieved from working as Capitalist slaves.

Of course, however, you are inclined to disagree, pull out some Pro-Capitalist rhetoric, and wisp away until I comment.

Figure is, you are one person on the internet. Insignificant in the face of six billion people. To consider yourself a realist in the face of millions of opinions far more sophisticated and mature is anything but exceptionally pathetic.


Enjoy your E-Dick Waving. I still couldn't possibly care. What you've managed to do in RL is annoy me, waste your time, and dick-wave the Pro-Capitalist banner while failing to address the fact that my relative has an education equal to that of a college honors algebra professor, who grew up a piss-in-the-bucket farmer, in one of the worlds most corrupt dictatorships at the time.

If I had my two cents, I'd say that your family abandoned Russian and stalked off into the U.S, apathetic and admirant of a system that is causing millions to suffer. More disgusting the realizational.

In any case, I don't care for your opinion, and I believe it is safe to say the world doesn't either.

People continuing an argument that I consider pointless, when I was addressing the OP. Any form of question he believed to be directed towards him was mildly-comic rhetoric. He saw otherwise.

Nice pic, BTW.

[Mongolian Khanate]

Very, very true.

My area of specialty is the socialist economies during their golden age (1950's-1970's), but even then an astute observer can see the cracks in the wall. Their economic performance was fairly impressive, but it came at a cost that would catch up with them; if anything, the failure of socialist economies was their inability to keep up with technology as in capitalist countries.

Of course, cultural stasis played a role as well; I saw some socialist-era advertisements from the USSR and it was amazing how they were stuck in the 1950's/1960's aesthetically. It's not coincidental that this period was as close as they came to market economics and freedom of expression in their entire history, I suppose.

I believe they also had a lot of difficulty going from an economy based on the secondary sector (industrial based) to a tertiary economy (service-based)

I'd like to know, only for the industrial sector, how much where they really behind? I think the gap might be small than in other fields.

[Demphor]

Communism in Theory:

Everyone puts a little into the pot at the end of each year, and take a little at the begining, so the budget is the same.

Communism in Action:

Everyone puts a little into the pot and then the government takes it all to spend on useless articles of clothing for when they emerge from their caves to meat Democratic leaders

[Terra Agora]

(Image)

People continuing an argument that I consider pointless, when I was addressing the OP. Any form of question he believed to be directed towards him was mildly-comic rhetoric. He saw otherwise.

Nice pic, BTW.

ad hominem

If Sibirsky is waving his "e-dick" then you are on your "e-period".

[Wamitoria]

Very, very true.

My area of specialty is the socialist economies during their golden age (1950's-1970's), but even then an astute observer can see the cracks in the wall. Their economic performance was fairly impressive, but it came at a cost that would catch up with them; if anything, the failure of socialist economies was their inability to keep up with technology as in capitalist countries.

That, and total central "planning" isn't efficient.

The biggest problem with most socialist nations is that they don't realize that money is the best way to motivate people.

If you want innovation, you have to pay your scientists well.

[Valtieres]

People continuing an argument that I consider pointless, when I was addressing the OP. Any form of question he believed to be directed towards him was mildly-comic rhetoric. He saw otherwise.

Nice pic, BTW.

ad hominem

If Sibirsky is waving his "e-dick" then you are on your "e-period".

Surprisingly, I find this hilarious. In truth, I tend to get in a fury over politics. Probably why I didn't cut the local debate team.........well, only after threatening the others with war and genocide.........out of boredom, of course. When you live in a stereotypical American Suburb with a large amount of Theocratic Conservatives, you tend to develop violent tendencies.

[Frei Volk]

Communism Capitalism brings social change through systematic annihilation, it bankrupts countries of any and all sense of morality and culture. For those who are still alive and good little "comrades," employees, it forces them into a life of long lines, lack of supplies, oppression, poverty and a slow death.

Fixed it for you.

You attack capitalism because you either don't understand the benefits of freedom, or you don't want them to exist. In communist ideology as described by Marx, there is a evolution in humanity from barbarianism, to feudalism, to capitalism, socialism, and then communism. He firmly believed that any groups that did not meet the evolutionary requirements of his theories were sub-human, and would have to be eliminated. He also happened to believe in German supremacy, and was excessively racist against jews (who he believed to automatically in the bourgeoisie), and eastern Europeans (who he just believed to be sub-human). Essentially, he was Hitler with better facial hair.

[Wamitoria]

My area of specialty is the socialist economies during their golden age (1950's-1970's), but even then an astute observer can see the cracks in the wall. Their economic performance was fairly impressive, but it came at a cost that would catch up with them; if anything, the failure of socialist economies was their inability to keep up with technology as in capitalist countries.

Of course, cultural stasis played a role as well; I saw some socialist-era advertisements from the USSR and it was amazing how they were stuck in the 1950's/1960's aesthetically. It's not coincidental that this period was as close as they came to market economics and freedom of expression in their entire history, I suppose.

I believe they also had a lot of difficulty going from an economy based on the secondary sector (industrial based) to a tertiary economy (service-based)

I'd like to know, only for the industrial sector, how much where they really behind? I think the gap might be small than in other fields.

Industrial-based economies were fine.

They were bad a producing consumer goods that could be exported.

[Valtieres]

Fixed it for you.

You attack capitalism because you either don't understand the benefits of freedom, or you don't want them to exist. In communist ideology as described by Marx, there is a evolution in humanity from barbarianism, to feudalism, to capitalism, socialism, and then communism. He firmly believed that any groups that did not meet the evolutionary requirements of his theories were sub-human, and would have to be eliminated. He also happened to believe in German supremacy, and was excessively racist against jews (who he believed to automatically in the bourgeoisie), and eastern Europeans (who he just believed to be sub-human). Essentially, he was Hitler with better facial hair.

Are you madly insane? Marx had a Jewish father.........

[Terra Agora]

You attack capitalism because you either don't understand the benefits of freedom, or you don't want them to exist. In communist ideology as described by Marx, there is a evolution in humanity from barbarianism, to feudalism, to capitalism, socialism, and then communism. He firmly believed that any groups that did not meet the evolutionary requirements of his theories were sub-human, and would have to be eliminated. He also happened to believe in German supremacy, and was excessively racist against jews (who he believed to automatically in the bourgeoisie), and eastern Europeans (who he just believed to be sub-human). Essentially, he was Hitler with better facial hair.

Are you madly insane? Marx had a Jewish father.........

Marx was indeed a anti-semite.

[The Grand Ocean]

You stereotypically assume that socialism means that people will become lazy. I offer you a... story I guess.

Say we have large farm with other farmers working together, 4 of the five farmers work hard for a good harvest, the fifth does nothing. All five are paid, but the fifth's "section" doesn't do as well as the other four. The other four have food AND surplus money because they don't have to buy food and they can use that money for luxuries (going to the bar, etc). The fifth however, has to spend his money to eat because he did not produce enough food. He can survive, fairly well, but he can't enjoy it.

Also: Matthew 25:31-46 41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.' 44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ 45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ 46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life”.

James 2:1-7

1My brothers, as believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ, don't show favoritism. 2Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in shabby clothes also comes in. 3If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, "Here's a good seat for you," but say to the poor man, "You stand there" or "Sit on the floor by my feet," 4have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts? 5Listen, my dear brothers: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him? 6But you have insulted the poor. Is it not the rich who are exploiting you? Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court? 7Are they not the ones who are slandering the noble name of him to whom you belong?

Oh and honestly, I don't vomit, I can be mature, I expect the same from you.

Matthew 25:14-30

14 “Again, it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted his wealth to them. 15 To one he gave five bags of gold, to another two bags, and to another one bag,[a] each according to his ability. Then he went on his journey. 16 The man who had received five bags of gold went at once and put his money to work and gained five bags more. 17 So also, the one with two bags of gold gained two more. 18 But the man who had received one bag went off, dug a hole in the ground and hid his master’s money.
19 “After a long time the master of those servants returned and settled accounts with them. 20 The man who had received five bags of gold brought the other five. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘you entrusted me with five bags of gold. See, I have gained five more.’

21 “His master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!’

22 “The man with two bags of gold also came. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘you entrusted me with two bags of gold; see, I have gained two more.’

23 “His master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!’

24 “Then the man who had received one bag of gold came. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘I knew that you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed. 25 So I was afraid and went out and hid your gold in the ground. See, here is what belongs to you.’

26 “His master replied, ‘You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed? 27 Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest.

28 “‘So take the bag of gold from him and give it to the one who has ten bags. 29 For whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. 30 And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’

Text proofing amounts to nothing. You can continue this practice of Eisigesis all you like and I can throw texts right back at you.

The truth is that Jesus cannot be boxed in. Sometimes he offends liberal sensibilities, and other times he offends conservative sensibilities. He wasn't socialist. I'm sorry, but nothing you can cite proves it at all b/c you are ignoring several key texts in making the case for your hypothesis. You are quite simply, incorrect.

So how does the Bible prove otherwise?

I have a great many verses that point to him being "socialistic". But please, find me verses (and show me another way to prove that he was not aside from the book) that prove that Jesus of Nazareth was not "socialistic".

[Sibirsky]

Sibirsky, your reality is far different from that of millions of Russians. From all the ones I've known, none of them admire or even acknowledge ANY benefits that they have recieved from working as Capitalist slaves.

Of course, however, you are inclined to disagree, pull out some Pro-Capitalist rhetoric, and wisp away until I comment.

Figure is, you are one person on the internet. Insignificant in the face of six billion people. To consider yourself a realist in the face of millions of opinions far more sophisticated and mature is anything but exceptionally pathetic.


Enjoy your E-Dick Waving. I still couldn't possibly care. What you've managed to do in RL is annoy me, waste your time, and dick-wave the Pro-Capitalist banner while failing to address the fact that my relative has an education equal to that of a college honors algebra professor, who grew up a piss-in-the-bucket farmer, in one of the worlds most corrupt dictatorships at the time.

If I had my two cents, I'd say that your family abandoned Russia and stalked off into the U.S, apathetic and admirant of a system that is causing millions to suffer. More disgusting the realizational.

In any case, I don't care for your opinion, and I believe it is safe to say the world doesn't either.

Your system is causing millions to suffer. It caused my family to suffer. For decades. My great grandfather (whom I am named after) was sent to a gulag for being a "liberal" without trial. My family had to wait seven years to get a landline telephone. Similar wait times for other things, like an apartment (which was smaller than my parent's bathroom in the US). For food, 2 hour long lines and the entire time you pray that they do not run out of food before your turn. And freedom? The most basic of freedoms were unheard of. You're telling me the system I admire is causing suffering to millions? That's shear madness. You're blinded by ideology. My first job out of high school, I made 45 times the average household income (depressed, post USSR collapse) of my former nation. Every paycheck was more than the household income. And I was not highly paid, this is just out of high school. To claim that socialism is better is insane.

We did not abandon Russia. We visit from time to time and still have family there. We moved to better our life.

The majority of Russian-Americans are quite capitalist actually. In fact Russian, have the highest rate of any ethnicity of being Millionaires in the US. I'm not there yet.

And what is an economics thread doing without one of my charts?

This is the average household income of my home nation, while I lived there, in constant inflation adjusted 2011 US dollars. There is no contest.

[Wamitoria]

Are you madly insane? Marx had a Jewish father.........

Marx was indeed a anti-semite.

Indeed he was. He saw them as an instrument of international finance and capitalism.

[Distruzio]

So how does the Bible prove otherwise?

I have a great many verses that point to him being "socialistic". But please, find me verses (and show me another way to prove that he was not aside from the book) that prove that Jesus of Nazareth was not "socialistic".

Seriously? Did you read nothing I posted?

Just... never mind. There is no point.

[Valtieres]

This thread is madness. We're getting off topic, and my rant has done no good.


Again, I remind the OP that there is no idealogy on the planet that isn't covered in the blood of martyrs and innocents.

@ Sibirsky:
Because I am supposed to take your word over the words of 40 Russians that I've come to know? That I take your word over the voices of dozens of Russians BEGGING for the old USSR to come back? Truth is, you are in a crowd that belongs to the Russian Millionaires. That is true. What your ancestors endured does not symbolize the struggle of today. You are using falsely sophisticated rhetoric and calmness to win the upper hand in this debate. I won't stand for it. Again, apathy towards your life.

@ OP:
Discuss politics in a.....more appropriate sanctum......

[Terra Agora]

@ Sibirsky: What your ancestors endured does not symbolize the struggle of today.

Ancestors???

No...

He lived it. This isn't passed down knowledge.

[Valtieres]

@ Sibirsky: What your ancestors endured does not symbolize the struggle of today.

Ancestors???

No...

He lived it. This isn't passed down knowledge.

The USSR during Sibirksy's time was incompetent. That is obvious. Lenin's dream was crushed. HOWEVER, millions of people still benefitted from the social policies and the state operated welfare of the day. People from the caucasus are suffering now because of a general isolationist attitude and resentment growing in Russia. Pathetic excuses for Ethnicism and nationalism are springing up in a country that was formerly tolerant of all, and poverty hit an all time high. My relative can speak for the friends he has that are now piss poor because of Sibirsky's wonderful "Capitalist" world. It did shit. Let me add that the relatives still living in Russia are in poverty because they used to work in a nationalized factory. Now they are fucked because they have no way of withstanding the shitstorm of taxes they weren't accustomed to. They were educated, but the system destroyed them after the rapid social upheaval.

[The Grand Ocean]

So how does the Bible prove otherwise?

I have a great many verses that point to him being "socialistic". But please, find me verses (and show me another way to prove that he was not aside from the book) that prove that Jesus of Nazareth was not "socialistic".

Seriously? Did you read nothing I posted?

Just... never mind. There is no point.

Hey, I'm asking an honest to God question here.

Because it seems to me that this is talking about what the Kingdom of Heaven is like:

Matthew 25:1: “At that time the kingdom of heaven will be like..."

And in 24:3 his disciples ask: “Tell us,” they said, “when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?...”

*Edit
Oh, and I can do too.

[Distruzio]

The USSR during Sibirksy's time was incompetent. That is obvious. Lenin's dream was crushed. HOWEVER, millions of people still benefitted from the social policies and the state operated welfare of the day. People from the caucasus are suffering now because of a general isolationist attitude and resentment growing in Russia. Pathetic excuses for Ethnicism and nationalism are springing up in a country that was formerly tolerant of all, and poverty hit an all time high. My relative can speak for the friends he has that are now piss poor because of Sibirsky's wonderful "Capitalist" world. It did shit. Let me add that the relatives still living in Russia are in poverty because they used to work in a nationalized factory. Now they are fucked because they have no way of withstanding the shitstorm of taxes they weren't accustomed to. They were educated, but the system destroyed them after the rapid social upheaval.

[Valtieres]

The USSR during Sibirksy's time was incompetent. That is obvious. Lenin's dream was crushed. HOWEVER, millions of people still benefitted from the social policies and the state operated welfare of the day. People from the caucasus are suffering now because of a general isolationist attitude and resentment growing in Russia. Pathetic excuses for Ethnicism and nationalism are springing up in a country that was formerly tolerant of all, and poverty hit an all time high. My relative can speak for the friends he has that are now piss poor because of Sibirsky's wonderful "Capitalist" world. It did shit. Let me add that the relatives still living in Russia are in poverty because they used to work in a nationalized factory. Now they are fucked because they have no way of withstanding the shitstorm of taxes they weren't accustomed to. They were educated, but the system destroyed them after the rapid social upheaval.

Your immaturity does nothing to improve your arguement.

[Bluth Corporation]

My area of specialty is the socialist economies during their golden age (1950's-1970's), but even then an astute observer can see the cracks in the wall. Their economic performance was fairly impressive, but it came at a cost that would catch up with them; if anything, the failure of socialist economies was their inability to keep up with technology as in capitalist countries.

That, and total central "planning" isn't efficient.

Which is part of the reason why Marxist Communists don't like it.

The biggest problem with most socialist nations is that they don't realize that money is the best way to motivate people.

It's really not. It helps, but it's far from the "best." Money just gets you to do enough not to get fired.

[Vetalia]

I believe they also had a lot of difficulty going from an economy based on the secondary sector (industrial based) to a tertiary economy (service-based)

I'd like to know, only for the industrial sector, how much where they really behind? I think the gap might be small than in other fields.

They were pretty behind; the Soviet industrial stock was badly outdated by the 1980's. However, this was more the result of Brezhnev's unwillingness to invest in new technology; the oil boom inflated the Soviet economy and let the state fund things even though the real economy was suffering. For example in the late 1960's, Kosygin proposed a massive retooling of the Magnitogorsk steel works to update them to contemporary technologies but it was quashed due to cost by Brezhnev; had they done so, the USSR could have remained a competitive steel producer.

Overall, up until the early 1970's Soviet industry was more or less comparable to that in the West technologically although it still lagged badly in terms of efficiency. Other nations like East Germany and Czechoslovakia remained competitive until later, but still fell behind; indeed, East Germany attempted an unsuccessful entry in to the microelectronics market.

[Vetalia]

Industrial-based economies were fine.

They were bad a producing consumer goods that could be exported.

In general, quality was a problem; since most plans were set by output rather than quality this meant factories would produce a lot of useless junk to help meet quota. Attempts to remediate this by implementing Liberman's economic reforms helped but in the end it was too little; of course, his economic policies likely approached capitalism too much for comfort as well.

[Wamitoria]

I believe they also had a lot of difficulty going from an economy based on the secondary sector (industrial based) to a tertiary economy (service-based)

I'd like to know, only for the industrial sector, how much where they really behind? I think the gap might be small than in other fields.

They were pretty behind; the Soviet industrial stock was badly outdated by the 1980's. However, this was more the result of Brezhnev's unwillingness to invest in new technology; the oil boom inflated the Soviet economy and let the state fund things even though the real economy was suffering. For example in the late 1960's, Kosygin proposed a massive retooling of the Magnitogorsk steel works to update them to contemporary technologies but it was quashed due to cost by Brezhnev; had they done so, the USSR could have remained a competitive steel producer.

Overall, up until the early 1970's Soviet industry was more or less comparable to that in the West technologically although it still lagged badly in terms of efficiency. Other nations like East Germany and Czechoslovakia remained competitive until later, but still fell behind; indeed, East Germany attempted an unsuccessful entry in to the microelectronics market.

If East Germany hadn't wasted all of it's cash on maintaining it's lolhuge secret police, do you think they could have remained competitive (prior to unification, of course)?