Communism: Persuade Me

[Distruzio]

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.

*smile at the edit*

Okay, like forealzsky. Text proofing is a theological dead end. You can read and read and read and cite all the verses you want, but without the knowledge of interpretation, you get all screwed up. Consider the constant debates between Socialists and Capitalists. Socialists insist that everything can be quantifiably observed with empirical evidence. But when the evidence stares them in the face that socialism has failed everywhere, they cannot interpret the data. They have no concept of qualitative interpretation. They do not understand the "theology" of their own system. So when a Capitalist asks questions, shows proofs, thinks about the implementation at all, the socialist is confused and frustrated (see Sib and Val exchange).

The same holds true for using scripture to prove anything. Text-proofing, serves no purpose. Think of it as the quantitative data. It is useless, without a qualitative theory to guide you. A theological foundation. The Church provides this foundation. Protestantism got this very fundamental fact all screwy when they split off and the faith went from 5 or 6 variations to more than 33,000. No one can agree on how to read the text. So any use of the bible, whatsoever, to prove any point, is utterly useless when relied upon as a method of explaining oneself.

That being said. Jesus was not a socialist. He was not a capitalist. He is God incarnate. He is not subject to the economy of the world unless He chooses to be. This is an application of the traditional Christian theology. We must view Christ's life in its entirety. Using single phrases from one point in his life speaks nothing of the man. Hitler used to tell the German people that he loved them. Does this show that he was a man with love to give? Obama once said there was 57 states. Does this mean that he is an idiot? Bush went to Harvard... is he an intelligent man? Jesus said something that could be construed as collectivist in nature, is he a socialist? No.

[Valtieres]

This is not a theology debate. This is a thread on how to be politically correct AND convince the OP towards Communism, which isn't working out.

[Bluth Corporation]

Okay, like forealzsky. Text proofing is a theological dead end. You can read and read and read and cite all the verses you want, but without the knowledge of interpretation, you get all screwed up. Consider the constant debates between Socialists and Capitalists. Socialists insist that everything can be quantifiably observed with empirical evidence. But when the evidence stares them in the face that socialism has failed everywhere, they cannot interpret the data.

What evidence?

I ask this again, as a committed Objectivist and advocate of laissez-faire:

What evidence?

[Vetalia]

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)?

That's a tough question, honestly. The GDR was dependent on the West to supply it with modern industrial machinery and could generally afford to do so for most of its history; I think they could have been competitive in a few industries such as chemicals or microelectronics had they invested the funds to do so, but by and large they were running an uphill race against comparable capitalist states given their population was only 17 million. It might have been easier if the entire CEMA had agreed to make efforts together to pursue those fields but otherwise they were doing so on their own.

However, the unfortunate truth is that the GDR was effectively subsidizing the laggards in the CEMA (especially the USSR) so they had an additional headwind to overcome to remain competitive. Whether they could be a global competitor without those pressures is unknown; certainly planned economies were good at focusing on specific areas, but at the same time they'd have to weigh that against the other issues with their system.

[Distruzio]

Okay, like forealzsky. Text proofing is a theological dead end. You can read and read and read and cite all the verses you want, but without the knowledge of interpretation, you get all screwed up. Consider the constant debates between Socialists and Capitalists. Socialists insist that everything can be quantifiably observed with empirical evidence. But when the evidence stares them in the face that socialism has failed everywhere, they cannot interpret the data.

What evidence?

I ask this again, as a committed Objectivist and advocate of laissez-faire:

What evidence?

Soviet Russia... Juche North Korea... Cuba... any nation in Africa...

[Distruzio]

This is not a theology debate. This is a thread on how to be politically correct AND convince the OP towards Communism, which isn't working out.

Tangents go where they will.

[The Grand Ocean]

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.

*smile at the edit*

Okay, like forealzsky. Text proofing is a theological dead end. You can read and read and read and cite all the verses you want, but without the knowledge of interpretation, you get all screwed up. Consider the constant debates between Socialists and Capitalists. Socialists insist that everything can be quantifiably observed with empirical evidence. But when the evidence stares them in the face that socialism has failed everywhere, they cannot interpret the data. They have no concept of qualitative interpretation. They do not understand the "theology" of their own system. So when a Capitalist asks questions, shows proofs, thinks about the implementation at all, the socialist is confused and frustrated (see Sib and Val exchange).

The same holds true for using scripture to prove anything. Text-proofing, serves no purpose. Think of it as the quantitative data. It is useless, without a qualitative theory to guide you. A theological foundation. The Church provides this foundation. Protestantism got this very fundamental fact all screwy when they split off and the faith went from 5 or 6 variations to more than 33,000. No one can agree on how to read the text. So any use of the bible, whatsoever, to prove any point, is utterly useless when relied upon as a method of explaining oneself.

That being said. Jesus was not a socialist. He was not a capitalist. He is God incarnate. He is not subject to the economy of the world unless He chooses to be. This is an application of the traditional Christian theology. We must view Christ's life in its entirety. Using single phrases from one point in his life speaks nothing of the man. Hitler used to tell the German people that he loved them. Does this show that he was a man with love to give? Obama once said there was 57 states. Does this mean that he is an idiot? Bush went to Harvard... is he an intelligent man? Jesus said something that could be construed as collectivist in nature, is he a socialist? No.

I think you got me. In my interpretation of these words he is, I can and I should've explained myself and the texts I put out, although you did not.
That being said, I do believe that socialism is a better choice over capitalism. If only for the fact that it has been tried on third world countries and ALTHOUGH there were some monsters at the head of them, you cannot deny that in those countries quality of life increased. As I said there were monsters, Stalin being one of the worst, but I must point out that right now there are prisoners at Gitmo who have had no trial, are treated cruelly, and are there because they are "suspected" of being terrorists.

Stupidity knows no ideology.

I respect your opinion, I may not agree with them, but I respect it.

[The Grand Ocean]

This is not a theology debate. This is a thread on how to be politically correct AND convince the OP towards Communism, which isn't working out.

Hey! You're supposed to be doing a project! You don't judge!

[Valtieres]

*smile at the edit*

Okay, like forealzsky. Text proofing is a theological dead end. You can read and read and read and cite all the verses you want, but without the knowledge of interpretation, you get all screwed up. Consider the constant debates between Socialists and Capitalists. Socialists insist that everything can be quantifiably observed with empirical evidence. But when the evidence stares them in the face that socialism has failed everywhere, they cannot interpret the data. They have no concept of qualitative interpretation. They do not understand the "theology" of their own system. So when a Capitalist asks questions, shows proofs, thinks about the implementation at all, the socialist is confused and frustrated (see Sib and Val exchange).

The same holds true for using scripture to prove anything. Text-proofing, serves no purpose. Think of it as the quantitative data. It is useless, without a qualitative theory to guide you. A theological foundation. The Church provides this foundation. Protestantism got this very fundamental fact all screwy when they split off and the faith went from 5 or 6 variations to more than 33,000. No one can agree on how to read the text. So any use of the bible, whatsoever, to prove any point, is utterly useless when relied upon as a method of explaining oneself.

That being said. Jesus was not a socialist. He was not a capitalist. He is God incarnate. He is not subject to the economy of the world unless He chooses to be. This is an application of the traditional Christian theology. We must view Christ's life in its entirety. Using single phrases from one point in his life speaks nothing of the man. Hitler used to tell the German people that he loved them. Does this show that he was a man with love to give? Obama once said there was 57 states. Does this mean that he is an idiot? Bush went to Harvard... is he an intelligent man? Jesus said something that could be construed as collectivist in nature, is he a socialist? No.

I think you got me. In my interpretation of these words he is, I can and I should've explained myself and the texts I put out, although you did not.
That being said, I do believe that socialism is a better choice over capitalism. If only for the fact that it has been tried on third world countries and ALTHOUGH there were some monsters at the head of them, you cannot deny that in those countries quality of life increased. As I said there were monsters, Stalin being one of the worst, but I must point out that right now there are prisoners at Gitmo who have had no trial, are treated cruelly, and are there because they are "suspected" of being terrorists.

Stupidity knows no ideology.

I respect your opinion, I may not agree with them, but I respect it.

Stupidity knows no ideology.

Comment of the year. Sigged and preserved, comrade.

[Valtieres]

This is not a theology debate. This is a thread on how to be politically correct AND convince the OP towards Communism, which isn't working out.

Hey! You're supposed to be doing a project! You don't judge!

Chinese Nationalism is boring. Chiang Kai-Shek can go wait in hell.

[Bluth Corporation]

What evidence?

I ask this again, as a committed Objectivist and advocate of laissez-faire:

What evidence?

Soviet Russia... Juche North Korea... Cuba... any nation in Africa...

What socialism was there, exactly?

[Sibirsky]

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.

The industrial sector was just as big a pile of shit as anything else. The enterprises were not forced to economize by the profit motive or the risk of loss. It cost the Soviet people dearly, in terms of the standard of living and efficiency. Enterprises would request whatever they could get. And sometimes they had inventory of one item lasting a year, and none of another item. Toyota, for comparison has inventory of two hours. They rely on their efficient capitalist suppliers to keep them working. Some had to make their own bricks, because they could not rely on the brick makers. Nobody at the top knew what the requirements were so the enterprises asked for as much as possible, just in case.

To make one ton of copper, the Soviet Union used about 1000 kilowatt hours of electrical energy. West Germany? 300! To make one ton of cement they used twice the energy that Japan did. They used more electricity than the US to produce less output.

There was a shortage of mining equipment. But the manager of the factory of this equipment had them in storage. The official orders requested red paint. He only had green paint. He said "I don't want to get 8 years" for using green paint. He asked a higher up for permission to use green paint and his boss said "Well, I don't want to get eight years either." And so they sat there, rotting. Disobeying orders was a crime against the state.

Hundreds of thousands of cars sat idle because tires had not been delivered. Meanwhile, in Japan, Germany and the US, production amongst tens of thousands of suppliers is almost automatic.

An average service life of industrial equipment in the USSR was 47 years. In the US it was 13 years. Obviously a 13 year old machine is going to be much more efficient than a 47 year old machine.

This waste of resources is one of the key reasons for the low standard of living.

[Sibirsky]

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.

They were just as bad at industrial economics.

[Wamitoria]

Industrial-based economies were fine.

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

They were just as bad at industrial economics.

That's not what I meant.

I meant that focusing on industry rather than services isn't a particularly bad thing.

[Sibirsky]

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......

I'm not a millionaire.

You're not supposed to take my word. You're supposed to see the reality of the situation. The 40 Russians? It's called nostalgia. You remember the good, ignore the bad.

The reason I have the upper hand is because facts are on my side.

[Sibirsky]

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.

Dude, you cannot turn 7 decades of central planning into a capitalist powerhouse overnight, especially as the centrally planned economies were collapsing. It takes time. They were all also, massively corrupt and remain so, slowing their growth.

[Sibirsky]

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)?

No. Lasted longer, yes. Competitive? No way in hell.

[Sibirsky]

This is not a theology debate. This is a thread on how to be politically correct AND convince the OP towards Communism, which isn't working out.

He invited others to try to convince him not to turn to communism.

[Sibirsky]

*smile at the edit*

Okay, like forealzsky. Text proofing is a theological dead end. You can read and read and read and cite all the verses you want, but without the knowledge of interpretation, you get all screwed up. Consider the constant debates between Socialists and Capitalists. Socialists insist that everything can be quantifiably observed with empirical evidence. But when the evidence stares them in the face that socialism has failed everywhere, they cannot interpret the data. They have no concept of qualitative interpretation. They do not understand the "theology" of their own system. So when a Capitalist asks questions, shows proofs, thinks about the implementation at all, the socialist is confused and frustrated (see Sib and Val exchange).

The same holds true for using scripture to prove anything. Text-proofing, serves no purpose. Think of it as the quantitative data. It is useless, without a qualitative theory to guide you. A theological foundation. The Church provides this foundation. Protestantism got this very fundamental fact all screwy when they split off and the faith went from 5 or 6 variations to more than 33,000. No one can agree on how to read the text. So any use of the bible, whatsoever, to prove any point, is utterly useless when relied upon as a method of explaining oneself.

That being said. Jesus was not a socialist. He was not a capitalist. He is God incarnate. He is not subject to the economy of the world unless He chooses to be. This is an application of the traditional Christian theology. We must view Christ's life in its entirety. Using single phrases from one point in his life speaks nothing of the man. Hitler used to tell the German people that he loved them. Does this show that he was a man with love to give? Obama once said there was 57 states. Does this mean that he is an idiot? Bush went to Harvard... is he an intelligent man? Jesus said something that could be construed as collectivist in nature, is he a socialist? No.

I think you got me. In my interpretation of these words he is, I can and I should've explained myself and the texts I put out, although you did not.
That being said, I do believe that socialism is a better choice over capitalism. If only for the fact that it has been tried on third world countries and ALTHOUGH there were some monsters at the head of them, you cannot deny that in those countries quality of life increased. As I said there were monsters, Stalin being one of the worst, but I must point out that right now there are prisoners at Gitmo who have had no trial, are treated cruelly, and are there because they are "suspected" of being terrorists.

Stupidity knows no ideology.

I respect your opinion, I may not agree with them, but I respect it.

Jesus Christ. No, socialism is extremely inefficient. It fails economically in spectacular fashion.

[Mongolian Khanate]

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)?

No. Lasted longer, yes. Competitive? No way in hell.

I don't think they would have lasted longer. They needed that secret police to keep the state together and keep a hold over the political scene.

Damned if they do, Damned if they don't

[Sibirsky]

They were just as bad at industrial economics.

That's not what I meant.

I meant that focusing on industry rather than services isn't a particularly bad thing.

Well. What about the consumers? Also, Soviet industry was mainly built on the backs of slave labor.

[Sibirsky]

No. Lasted longer, yes. Competitive? No way in hell.

I don't think they would have lasted longer. They needed that secret police to keep the state together and keep a hold over the political scene.

Damned if they do, Damned if they don't

Good riddance. Friends from Germany tell me you can still see a massive disparity in living standards between East and West Germany more than two decades after reunification.

[Vetalia]

Dude, you cannot turn 7 decades of central planning into a capitalist powerhouse overnight, especially as the centrally planned economies were collapsing. It takes time. They were all also, massively corrupt and remain so, slowing their growth.

I was going to say that...central planning meant big state-owned corporations that in turn meant big oligarchical empires with close ties to the state after privatization. That sort of madness takes time to dissolve.

[The Grand Ocean]

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......

I'm not a millionaire.

You're not supposed to take my word. You're supposed to see the reality of the situation. The 40 Russians? It's called nostalgia. You remember the good, ignore the bad.

The reason I have the upper hand is because facts are on my side.

This comes from somebody who's parents lived under communist rule:

"The Soviet Union wasn't bad unless you didn't know how to keep your mouth shut - the overthrow of the Czar and the ushering in of a people's government was expected because life under the Czar had turned so wasteful and negligent. What ended up happening however was the turning of the Communist party into a totalitarian dictatorship due to Stalin's takeover of the party.

What people call Communism in Russia was clearly just Stalinism, his own hunger for power and security at all costs. After Stalin died, there were efforts by the party to try to ease life. But Stalin's death would instigate political turmoil in satellite countries.

Under the people's government for the people, listening to divisive information from other countries was considered seditious and harmful and was never encouraged in the name of national security. Hence censorship existed.

Yes the USSR was the first to launch a satellite and first to put a man in orbit.

There were good things however about being a citizen under a Communist government, things which westerners will cringe over because they have not lived under it.

Under Communism, you could receive the highest education, entirely free of charge. Engineering and other forms of high education were highly prized. Everyone had a job, there was no unemployment.

Everyone had housing - no homelessness - and healthcare. You were a part of society and expected to contribute to society. Selfishness and greed were not allowed to play any part of the social structure.

You couldn't become stinking rich. But in that society none of the essentials were ever priced out of reach of the common man so you never needed to become wealthy.

This could possibly bring complaint by someone who studied to be a doctor or an engineer because they would receive only the same pay as a taxi driver. But that was the price to pay for social security and independence from the west.

Its also interesting to note that the great Depression in the 1903s did not touch the Russian economy at all.

In the 1930s up through to the 50s if you were suspected of participating in politics against the party, even if those suspicions were merely a wrong comment or outright protests, you could be dealt with harshly, arrested in the middle of the night and either taken away, sent to Siberian work camps or imprisoned, or just shot.

Things eased a bit in the 60s and 70s but the freedoms people have in the west to whine and complain were never known in Russia under Communist rule.

The USA in the 1950s, paranoid over the strength of Russia under Stalin's harsh rule, worked hard to discredit and bring down the USSR bu any means it could, including deliberate lies in order to secure success for American political ambitions. This continued for decades.

In the 80s the Reagan government sought to undermine the strength of Russia by reinforcing Afghanistan's "Freedom fighters" with American weapons, thus dragging Russia into a prolonged war which eventually bankrupted the nation and helped usher in the collapse of the Communist system under Gorbachev who was altogether too friendly with American government and big business interests.

The only cause American business and governments had towards maintaining freedom for individuals was so individuals could be spoon-fed "freedom" under the guise of Americanism and thus allow American business and it's corporations to grow for the purpose of gaining control over what the citizens watch, read and eat - which hasn't proven to be freedom.

There were stressful points of course and these caused a lot of hardship. In the 1930s Stalin engineered a famine in Russia which left millions dead - the purpose was so Stalin could purchase western technology and thus swiftly industrialize Russia which until the 1920s was largely a remote, isolated and backwards agrarian nation, inefficient and rebellious.

Political strife and speech were harshly dealt with in the 30s. Stalin organized a protected society within society in order to maintain his vision of how the government ought to be run.

Some historians believe that Stalin's harsh ideas for government grew culturally from Russia's own history over the centuries, highly influenced from the viciousness of Mongolian rule 400-500 years earlier, the essence of which existed in Russian peasant culture for many years after the Mongolians ceased to be of importance in Russia. My parents grew up under Communism.

I spent 3 summers in Communist Hungary with relatives too. It wasn't perfect. But people didn't go without housing and food as they do here in the west.

If you knew how to keep your mouth shut and realized that rocking the boat only got you in trouble, then you could do very well."

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index ... 543AAmgvGW

[Sibirsky]

Dude, you cannot turn 7 decades of central planning into a capitalist powerhouse overnight, especially as the centrally planned economies were collapsing. It takes time. They were all also, massively corrupt and remain so, slowing their growth.

I was going to say that...central planning meant big state-owned corporations that in turn meant big oligarchical empires with close ties to the state after privatization. That sort of madness takes time to dissolve.

Inefficient corporations. That were sold off to people with connections. They went from... god knows what to tightly regulated, corrupt, crony capitalism.