Communism: Persuade Me

[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.

I like that quote!

Yeah, I'm not exactly a fan of Maggie on the social scale, but economically she did good things. And she spoke well.

[Mongolian Khanate]

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

Oh please do.

I'm not like Sibirsky, I'm a lazy fat-cat, so no funky charts from me

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... t_2009.png

Hong-Kong's gini c. was Gini (2007) 43.4[10]

So sensibly the same income disparity as PRC. Except they've got quite a gap between the two in median income.

Similar gini c. between the US and the PRC, except the standard of living in the US is quite larger.

[Sibirsky]

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?

Can't do Imperial Russia. I can do the Soviet Union as a whole 1969-1991 and the sum of it's parts 1991-today, compared to Russia by itself. One sec.

[Sibirsky]

Same data set, GDP/capita chained 2011 USD 1969-2010. Except the 1969-1991 data is estimated, as we do not have reliable statistics from them. Russia was the wealthiest (least poor) of the republics. 1991 is mark the beginning of the sharp drop of (which in reality started in the mid 80s).

And notice how small that sharp drop off looks on the chart with the United Kingdom.

[Fellrike]

People always claim that Communism doesn't work, but this is untrue. Fact is, it works very well, in communities like abbeys, convents, and kibbutzim, where idealistic people who believe in collectivism have gathered together and dedicated themselves to making it work. Even here in the United States, there have been commercially successful communes. Problem is, it doesn't work when imposed on societies of people who are generally individualistic and self-interested. I think this comprises the vast majority of mankind.
Some would say this is untrue, while others claim it only shows the need to raise the consciousness of the people, to make them ready to accept Communism. But I think human nature is pretty much unchangeable. The way to get people to do what you want isn't to scold or preach, but rather to incentivize the behavior you want.
By the way, how do you guys like my new flag? Fellrike was supposed to be a monarchy, but apparently I'm Communist now, so I made up this morning star flail and sickle emblem for my nation. It says, we're Communists, but with medieval sensibilities.

[The Grand Ocean]

Oh please do.

I'm not like Sibirsky, I'm a lazy fat-cat, so no funky charts from me

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... t_2009.png

Hong-Kong's gini c. was Gini (2007) 43.4[10]

So sensibly the same income disparity as PRC. Except they've got quite a gap between the two in median income.

Similar gini c. between the US and the PRC, except the standard of living in the US is quite larger.

I don't deny that. It's interesting though.

As I've said before these states were not good examples of socialism because they were taken over by madmen, but, they created what they have, out of nothing, they took poor countries and gave them some industry. I do not defend the crimes of these places as I do not defend the atrocities carried out by my own country.

It seems like it's the lesser of two evils here, they could have stayed under monarchic rule and be worse off, or they could have gone through these revolutions and have what little they do have.

They were communist by name, not action.

[Wamitoria]

Same data set, GDP/capita chained 2011 USD 1969-2010. Except the 1969-1991 data is estimated, as we do not have reliable statistics from them. Russia was the wealthiest (least poor) of the republics. 1991 is mark the beginning of the sharp drop of (which in reality started in the mid 80s).
(Image)
And notice how small that sharp drop off looks on the chart with the United Kingdom.

Huh. I thought Russia's GDP per capita was higher than that.

[Sibirsky]

I'm not like Sibirsky, I'm a lazy fat-cat, so no funky charts from me

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... t_2009.png

Hong-Kong's gini c. was Gini (2007) 43.4[10]

So sensibly the same income disparity as PRC. Except they've got quite a gap between the two in median income.

Similar gini c. between the US and the PRC, except the standard of living in the US is quite larger.

I don't deny that. It's interesting though.

As I've said before these states were not good examples of socialism because they were taken over by madmen, but, they created what they have, out of nothing, they took poor countries and gave them some industry. I do not defend the crimes of these places as I do not defend the atrocities carried out by my own country.

It seems like it's the lesser of two evils here, they could have stayed under monarchic rule and be worse off, or they could have gone through these revolutions and have what little they do have.

They were communist by name, not action.

But capitalist nations were also poor, and achieved more industrial success with less pain.

Britain staid under monarchic rule and is many times better off.

Imperial Russia, was not as far behind Western Europe as it is today. Still behind, just not as far behind.

[Mongolian Khanate]

I'm not like Sibirsky, I'm a lazy fat-cat, so no funky charts from me

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... t_2009.png

Hong-Kong's gini c. was Gini (2007) 43.4[10]

So sensibly the same income disparity as PRC. Except they've got quite a gap between the two in median income.

Similar gini c. between the US and the PRC, except the standard of living in the US is quite larger.

I don't deny that. It's interesting though.

As I've said before these states were not good examples of socialism because they were taken over by madmen, but, they created what they have, out of nothing, they took poor countries and gave them some industry. I do not defend the crimes of these places as I do not defend the atrocities carried out by my own country.

It seems like it's the lesser of two evils here, they could have stayed under monarchic rule and be worse off, or they could have gone through these revolutions and have what little they do have.

They were communist by name, not action.

They needed a revolution all-right, but authoritarianism is no way to build a nation. If I remember correctly (and if I'm not, more well-versed people will promptly correct me) Kerenski was looking for a democratic alternative

[Vetalia]

Huh. I thought Russia's GDP per capita was higher than that.

To be fair, you'd also have to translate for purchasing power although even then the difference would be substantial.

[Wamitoria]

Huh. I thought Russia's GDP per capita was higher than that.

To be fair, you'd also have to translate for purchasing power although even then the difference would be substantial.

I suppose.

[Trotskyist Hashtag]

I don't see the point about arguing whether life in the Soviet Union was so full of rainbows, sunshine, and weed since it failed and failed for a damn good reason. Obviously (guess from my name) I'm not such a great fan of capitalism. Three things will cause it to crumble and inevitably lead to a need for worldwide democratic-central planning whether we know how to implement it or not:

1. The climate crisis
2. Depletion of oil
3. Food prices going up to levels beyond which anyone can afford

Neoliberalism is a system of inequality. In order for people in the capitalist countries to enjoy their cars, talking toilets, and snuggies people in the developing world are kept in a dirt-poor state so they can provide the raw resources and preserve their "comparative advantage" in providing slave-like labor.

[Sibirsky]

Same data set, GDP/capita chained 2011 USD 1969-2010. Except the 1969-1991 data is estimated, as we do not have reliable statistics from them. Russia was the wealthiest (least poor) of the republics. 1991 is mark the beginning of the sharp drop of (which in reality started in the mid 80s).
(Image)
And notice how small that sharp drop off looks on the chart with the United Kingdom.

Huh. I thought Russia's GDP per capita was higher than that.

Depends on who you ask. Various sources have various data

Also, I forgot to adjust for PPP. It's just a tad bit under $7,579.07 on my chart. Adjusting for PPP it would be $11,437.88.

CIA claims $15,900. I think they overestimate.

My source...
http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/macroeconomics/

[The Grand Ocean]

I don't deny that. It's interesting though.

As I've said before these states were not good examples of socialism because they were taken over by madmen, but, they created what they have, out of nothing, they took poor countries and gave them some industry. I do not defend the crimes of these places as I do not defend the atrocities carried out by my own country.

It seems like it's the lesser of two evils here, they could have stayed under monarchic rule and be worse off, or they could have gone through these revolutions and have what little they do have.

They were communist by name, not action.

But capitalist nations were also poor, and achieved more industrial success with less pain.

Britain staid under monarchic rule and is many times better off.

Imperial Russia, was not as far behind Western Europe as it is today. Still behind, just not as far behind.

I think we can all agree that authoritarianism is bad, for any truly free society the people must be in charge.
By the people, for the people.

And Britain's monarchy doesn't count, it hasn't had any real power for I don't know how long.

[Alexlantis]

Communism only works if everyone is willing to work. In order to do this, there must first be socialism, which persuades the worker to work. They still benefit no matter what line of work they take, but the more they work the more they earn. Once they adapt to just flat out working, then communism can take place. Until humanity works without having to face consequences for not working, communism doesn't work. Human nature under capitalism is slaving for the poor and, when and if someone becomes rich, luxury and laid back work ethic (usually).

[Mongolian Khanate]

Communism only works if everyone is willing to work. In order to do this, there must first be socialism, which persuades the worker to work. They still benefit no matter what line of work they take, but the more they work the more they earn. Once they adapt to just flat out working, then communism can take place. Until humanity works without having to face consequences for not working, communism doesn't work. Human nature under capitalism is slaving for the poor and, when and if someone becomes rich, luxury and laid back work ethic (usually).

Tell me, how do you "persuade" the worker to work?

[Fellrike]

Who would work, if they didn't have to?

[Wamitoria]

Communism only works if everyone is willing to work. In order to do this, there must first be socialism, which persuades the worker to work. They still benefit no matter what line of work they take, but the more they work the more they earn. Once they adapt to just flat out working, then communism can take place. Until humanity works without having to face consequences for not working, communism doesn't work. Human nature under capitalism is slaving for the poor and, when and if someone becomes rich, luxury and laid back work ethic (usually).

Tell me, how do you "persuade" the worker to work?

Money.

Owait...

[The Grand Ocean]

Communism only works if everyone is willing to work. In order to do this, there must first be socialism, which persuades the worker to work. They still benefit no matter what line of work they take, but the more they work the more they earn. Once they adapt to just flat out working, then communism can take place. Until humanity works without having to face consequences for not working, communism doesn't work. Human nature under capitalism is slaving for the poor and, when and if someone becomes rich, luxury and laid back work ethic (usually).

Tell me, how do you "persuade" the worker to work?

Ever been so bored while sitting at home? That.

It's human nature to go out and do something.

[Sibirsky]

But capitalist nations were also poor, and achieved more industrial success with less pain.

Britain staid under monarchic rule and is many times better off.

Imperial Russia, was not as far behind Western Europe as it is today. Still behind, just not as far behind.

I think we can all agree that authoritarianism is bad, for any truly free society the people must be in charge.
By the people, for the people.

And Britain's monarchy doesn't count, it hasn't had any real power for I don't know how long.

Britain's monarchy is a good example of how you don't need a violent overthrow of a monarchy for things to turn out for the better. They ended up with a far more efficient system, and much higher standards of living. The basic things are all available, for the same point if use price. And they are of much higher quality. Mainly because the rest of it is so productive and can finance the better quality.

[Mongolian Khanate]

But capitalist nations were also poor, and achieved more industrial success with less pain.

Britain staid under monarchic rule and is many times better off.

Imperial Russia, was not as far behind Western Europe as it is today. Still behind, just not as far behind.

I think we can all agree that authoritarianism is bad, for any truly free society the people must be in charge.
By the people, for the people.

And Britain's monarchy doesn't count, it hasn't had any real power for I don't know how long.

Not only for a "free" society, but also for an efficient one

[Sibirsky]

Communism only works if everyone is willing to work. In order to do this, there must first be socialism, which persuades the worker to work. They still benefit no matter what line of work they take, but the more they work the more they earn. Once they adapt to just flat out working, then communism can take place. Until humanity works without having to face consequences for not working, communism doesn't work. Human nature under capitalism is slaving for the poor and, when and if someone becomes rich, luxury and laid back work ethic (usually).

Tell me, how do you "persuade" the worker to work?

Not working is a crime against the state. You go to a gulag to work there. Your food ration is based on the amount of work you perform. In authoritarian hellholes that is.

[Hydesland]

This monarchy thing misses the point. The revolution didn't actually lead immediately into Bolshevik rule, the idea initially was just to have a modern progressive government (for its time).

[Mongolian Khanate]

Tell me, how do you "persuade" the worker to work?

Ever been so bored while sitting at home? That.

It's human nature to go out and do something.

Sure, I'll go out and trade my labor, or set-up my own business, or just get drunk with Sibirsky while listening to his jokes about the soviet era, because they make my day.

I'm not going to work to the fields because that's what the Gosplan asks me to do

[The Grand Ocean]

I think we can all agree that authoritarianism is bad, for any truly free society the people must be in charge.
By the people, for the people.

And Britain's monarchy doesn't count, it hasn't had any real power for I don't know how long.

Not only for a "free" society, but also for an efficient one

What is "efficient" for a society?