Communism: Persuade Me

[The Grand Ocean]

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.

How do you define a system that has never been truly put into place inefficient? Indeed, capitalism in the US doesn't do the job very well except for those at the top.

[Sibirsky]

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

How do you define a system that has never been truly put into place inefficient? Indeed, capitalism in the US doesn't do the job very well except for those at the top.

Are you high? The median household income in the US is 20 times higher than in Moldova and what it was at the beginning of the 20th century. The "poor" in the US have a standard of living that is multiple times better than all the former Soviet Republics other than the Baltic states.

Socialism, public ownership of the means of production was the norm of the USSR.

[Hydesland]

"The Soviet Union wasn't bad unless you didn't know how to keep your mouth shut

And already it fails, within the first clause, bravo.

Under Communism, you could receive the highest education, entirely free of charge.

This also happens in many many capitalist countries, so not an argument.

Engineering and other forms of high education were highly prized. Everyone had a job, there was no unemployment.

Full employment is not necessarily desirable, especially if it comes at other massive costs.

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.

Except I have seen a huge amount of reports regarding famine, terrible quality goods, lack of access to clean water, huge waiting lines for basic food stuffs and conditions of abject poverty within the soviet union.

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

The Russian economy had just recovered from one of the most horrific famines it would ever experience, brought about by attempts at collectivised farming. At that point, the economy had already bottomed out, it could only go up.

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.

And this fear state is what enabled compliance in the factories. It is however immoral.

But people didn't go without housing and food as they do here in the west.

The poverty rate in western European nations has always been lower than soviet states.

[Mongolian Khanate]

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

How about I have a fucking democracy and not some authoritarian shithole?

My Canada's doing mighty fine, thank you very much. We don't have deaths by starvation, and our homeless are sheltered, all while garanteeing adequate political and economic freedom

[The Grand Ocean]

How do you define a system that has never been truly put into place inefficient? Indeed, capitalism in the US doesn't do the job very well except for those at the top.

Are you high? The median household income in the US is 20 times higher than in Moldova and what it was at the beginning of the 20th century. The "poor" in the US have a standard of living that is multiple times better than all the former Soviet Republics other than the Baltic states.

Socialism, public ownership of the means of production was the norm of the USSR.

But it wasn't, it was under the control of the corrupt bureaucracy, as you said it was autocratic, very few consider the "communist states" (even that is an impossibility!) truly socialist.

And no I'm not, I don't harm my body in such a way.

You say you have facts, show them to me. Numbers et al.

[The Grand Ocean]

"The Soviet Union wasn't bad unless you didn't know how to keep your mouth shut

And already it fails, within the first clause, bravo.

Under Communism, you could receive the highest education, entirely free of charge.

This also happens in many many capitalist countries, so not an argument.

Engineering and other forms of high education were highly prized. Everyone had a job, there was no unemployment.

Full employment is not necessarily desirable, especially if it comes at other massive costs.

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.

Except I have seen a huge amount of reports regarding famine, terrible quality goods, lack of access to clean water, huge waiting lines for basic food stuffs and conditions of abject poverty within the soviet union.

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

The Russian economy had just recovered from one of the most horrific famines it would ever experience, brought about by attempts at collectivised farming. At that point, the economy had already bottomed out, it could only go up.

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.

And this fear state is what enabled compliance in the factories. It is however immoral.

But people didn't go without housing and food as they do here in the west.

The poverty rate in western European nations has always been lower than soviet states.

As I said George, the "communist states" were nowhere near perfect, I sure wouldn't want to live in them. Many started from countries that had no roads or railroads or had less than a 30% literacy rate. You could only go up. These were poor countries that were essentially in the middle ages.

[Perseverantia]

Except, history shows us otherwise. Was it a self proclaimed capitalist which murdered millions upon millions of political prisoners and dissenters from Asia to Europe to Africa to Latin America since 1917? Who was capital's Stalin, and Mao?

If you're going to group Stalin with us, then we'll group Franco and Mussolini with you guys, I'd venture to say Hitler too, but he wasn't all that capitalistic, more of an economic centrist.

Fascism is not capitalism. It is an unholy union of government and big business. Capitalism does not need a government. Free market capitalism is true freedom. It is man bargaining with other men, not the "community" telling them what to do.

[Sibirsky]

Are you high? The median household income in the US is 20 times higher than in Moldova and what it was at the beginning of the 20th century. The "poor" in the US have a standard of living that is multiple times better than all the former Soviet Republics other than the Baltic states.

Socialism, public ownership of the means of production was the norm of the USSR.

But it wasn't, it was under the control of the corrupt bureaucracy, as you said it was autocratic, very few consider the "communist states" (even that is an impossibility!) truly socialist.

And no I'm not, I don't harm my body in such a way.

You say you have facts, show them to me. Numbers et al.

2 hour wait times for bread mean anything to you? If you're lucky. If luck is not on your side they run out before your turn. Using more energy to produce less goods, as described on the previous page. Massive inefficiencies.

The high comment was rhetorical based on your comment of American capitalism not doing a good job except for those at the top. It's nonsense. Those at the bottom are better off than those in socialist economies.

Pick 5-10 nations. Mostly capitalist, and mostly socialist and I can chart them for you. The difference is staggering. Except North Korea, they are so reclusive I don't have good data for them.

[Hydesland]

As I said George, the "communist states" were nowhere near perfect, I sure wouldn't want to live in them. Many started from countries that had no roads or railroads or had less than a 30% literacy rate. You could only go up. These were poor countries that were essentially in the middle ages.

But it's not convincing. It basically said that soviet Russia allegedly did all the stuff that nations like Norway, Canada, New Zealand and many others already do, except these nations don't do it at the cost of extreme authoritarianism.

[Sibirsky]

And already it fails, within the first clause, bravo.



This also happens in many many capitalist countries, so not an argument.



Full employment is not necessarily desirable, especially if it comes at other massive costs.



Except I have seen a huge amount of reports regarding famine, terrible quality goods, lack of access to clean water, huge waiting lines for basic food stuffs and conditions of abject poverty within the soviet union.



The Russian economy had just recovered from one of the most horrific famines it would ever experience, brought about by attempts at collectivised farming. At that point, the economy had already bottomed out, it could only go up.



And this fear state is what enabled compliance in the factories. It is however immoral.



The poverty rate in western European nations has always been lower than soviet states.

As I said George, the "communist states" were nowhere near perfect, I sure wouldn't want to live in them. Many started from countries that had no roads or railroads or had less than a 30% literacy rate. You could only go up. These were poor countries that were essentially in the middle ages.

So, like any other nation prior to the industrial revolution.

[The Grand Ocean]

But it wasn't, it was under the control of the corrupt bureaucracy, as you said it was autocratic, very few consider the "communist states" (even that is an impossibility!) truly socialist.

And no I'm not, I don't harm my body in such a way.

You say you have facts, show them to me. Numbers et al.

2 hour wait times for bread mean anything to you? If you're lucky. If luck is not on your side they run out before your turn. Using more energy to produce less goods, as described on the previous page. Massive inefficiencies.

The high comment was rhetorical based on your comment of American capitalism not doing a good job except for those at the top. It's nonsense. Those at the bottom are better off than those in socialist economies.

Pick 5-10 nations. Mostly capitalist, and mostly socialist and I can chart them for you. The difference is staggering. Except North Korea, they are so reclusive I don't have good data for them.

Surprise me.

[The Merchant Republics]

Cavemen worked because if they don't hunt for food they would die. That is working so that you get something in return.

I never said food. I said Water. Easily accessible water, at that. Of course, in our wonderful modern world, we have a thing called " Magical Borders ", enforced by security guards. How something so simple became a product is beyond me.

Do you live near a stream? Badda-bing free water!

Even if someone owns said stream they usually won't mind you stopping in for a drink.

Now however, if you are talking about the purified internal plumbing provided water that you find in your sink, you have to "fucking pay" for it because there is no magical communist fairy that builds these things without the use of money or time-labour.

And really if your moving trans-nationally to find water, you live in a screwed up nation already. Most first world nations have plentiful access to clean water, indeed it is one of the things that best predicts a first-world nation. Also I've never heard of a "Magical Border" but assuming you mean the ones that divide nations you'll find most capitalist and free market proponents are in favour of reducing their effect.

[Sibirsky]

Gorby to Maggie; "How do you see to it that people get food?"

Maggie to Gorby; "I don't."

Markets do. And the Brits were far better fed, for lower comparative cost than the Russians.

[The Grand Ocean]

Gorby to Maggie; "How do you see to it that people get food?"

Maggie to Gorby; "I don't."

Markets do. And the Brits were far better fed, for lower comparative cost than the Russians.

That's your proof?!

[Sibirsky]

All charts are in chained 2005 USD for 1969-2010

The "4 combined" are Bosnia Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia and Serbia.

And on and on and on.

[The Grand Ocean]

All charts are in chained 2005 USD for 1969-2010

(Image)

(Image)

(Image)

The "4 combined" are Bosnia Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia and Serbia.
(Image)
And on and on and on.

And these charts show mean incomes?

[Mongolian Khanate]

All charts are in chained 2005 USD for 1969-2010

(Image)

(Image)

(Image)

The "4 combined" are Bosnia Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia and Serbia.
(Image)
And on and on and on.

And these charts show mean incomes?

If you are afraid of inequalities, we can throw in Gini indexes

[The Grand Ocean]

As I said George, the "communist states" were nowhere near perfect, I sure wouldn't want to live in them. Many started from countries that had no roads or railroads or had less than a 30% literacy rate. You could only go up. These were poor countries that were essentially in the middle ages.

But it's not convincing. It basically said that soviet Russia allegedly did all the stuff that nations like Norway, Canada, New Zealand and many others already do, except these nations don't do it at the cost of extreme authoritarianism.

Except this nation did it earlier from literally nothing.

[The Grand Ocean]

And these charts show mean incomes?

If you are afraid of inequalities, we can throw in Gini indexes

Gini?

[The Merchant Republics]

Gorby to Maggie; "How do you see to it that people get food?"

Maggie to Gorby; "I don't."

Markets do. And the Brits were far better fed, for lower comparative cost than the Russians.

I like that quote!

[Mongolian Khanate]

If you are afraid of inequalities, we can throw in Gini indexes

Gini?

Gini coefficient, essentially a measure of income disparity in a given country

[The Grand Ocean]

Gini?

Gini coefficient, essentially a measure of income disparity in a given country

Oh please do.

[Sibirsky]

Gorby to Maggie; "How do you see to it that people get food?"

Maggie to Gorby; "I don't."

Markets do. And the Brits were far better fed, for lower comparative cost than the Russians.

That's your proof?!

How much proof do you need? There are hundreds of thousand of records.

That was a funny anecdote. Based on the realities of the two nations.

Here they are in their glory.
GDP/capita 1969-2010, chained 2011 USD

[Sibirsky]

All charts are in chained 2005 USD for 1969-2010

(Image)

(Image)

(Image)

The "4 combined" are Bosnia Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia and Serbia.
(Image)
And on and on and on.

And these charts show mean incomes?

GDP/capita, highly correlated to incomes.

[The Grand Ocean]

That's your proof?!

How much proof do you need? There are hundreds of thousand of records.

That was a funny anecdote. Based on the realities of the two nations.

Here they are in their glory.
GDP/capita 1969-2010, chained 2011 USD

You got me on income.

Out of curiosity, do you have that same comparison, but against Imperial Russia instead of the SU? Or, the SU against Russian Fed?