Would you rather live in the Soviet system or the American?

[Adin]

I have an idea! Why don't we combine both systems!

And then people start pointing out how bad my idea is.

[Valkalan]

I would rather both systems be dismantled and a stateless society take place, where everyone has the freedom to pursue whichever ideology they have as long as it doesn't infringe on any other person's freedom in doing so, from communism to voluntaryism...

And how do you propose that this transition is to take place? History suggests that millions of diverse individuals will not simply embrace the revolution overnight, or exist peacefully and productively in the absence of the state.

[Constantinopolis]

Consider the case of Scottish independence that is to be decided later this month. The UK is a prosperous nation with extensive liberties, yet there exist those who desire independence.

...and every poll indicates that they are about to lose in the referendum later this month, and quite badly at that.

What makes you think that the people of the USSR, a nation that lacked prosperity or any great personal liberty, would want to remain a part of that cesspool?

Uh... first of all the people of the USSR were better off than the great majority of the world - hardly a "cesspool" - and secondly, there are many multi-ethnic countries in the world with far worse conditions than the USSR ever had, and which nevertheless do not have any significant secessionist movements.

Just to use the biggest example, India doesn't seem to be in any danger of breaking up any time soon, despite being (a) extremely ethnically diverse, and (b) far worse off than the USSR ever was. I wonder why that is so? Oh yeah, because people do not automatically demand independence every time they are upset about something.

As for the question of economic management, I gave the USSR the benefit of the doubt that they would have sought a more market-oriented model, especially given the perestroika reforms. However seeing as how wish to image that the 21th century USSR had retained a command economy, perhaps you should examine other extant command economies. Cuba and North Korea will suffice.

The perestroika reforms were the thing that destroyed the Soviet economy, and ultimately the USSR itself.

As for Cuba and North Korea, they were always among the worst-performing command economies in the world, and far behind the USSR itself. Having said that, however, the Cuban economy is doing pretty well, actually. Not great, but not badly either.

[Constantinopolis]

I'd rather have a flawed Ochlocracy like the U.S. that does a better job at protecting basic human rights then the USSR... where, say, I can get shot for wearing a crucifix necklace in public.

No you wouldn't. In fact, you could be the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church and have a drink with Brezhnev.



Seriously, people, there is a difference between run-of-the-mill repression and cartoonish supervillainy.

[Solaray]

I have an idea! Why don't we combine both systems!

And then people start pointing out how bad my idea is.

You mean like the mixed market social democracies that many modern European countries utilize?

[Napkiraly]

American.

[Othelos]

clearly America is better lol.

[Agiptiota]

Gotta love the clothing or Orthodox clergy.

[Oceanic Vakiadia]

The USA consistently had a higher average quality of life than the USSR. It's not a stretch to assume that would be the case if the Soviet system never fell.

[The New Sea Territory]

That last part should be labeled "capitalism", since voluntaryism isn't an economic system. But I agree.

Voluntaryism is seen as furthest on the economic right and communism furthest left. That's why I said from communism to voluntaryism.

Voluntaryism isn't inherently capitalist, nor is it an economic system at all. It is a anarchist social and organizational system. Capitalism, specifically laissez-faire capitalism, rather than agorism, is the farthest right if you still buy into the left-right paradigm.

I have an idea! Why don't we combine both systems!

And then people start pointing out how bad my idea is.

You mean like the mixed market social democracies that many modern European countries utilize?

Yeah, let's get two bastardized systems that are already both corrupt and mix them!

[The Almighty Bob]

The inconvenient truth of the Soviet system is that it only works in small, self-policing groups of people. It does not account for humanity.

The inherent problem with every ideological system-at least, as far as I have seen-is that they all rely upon humanity's willingness to actually follow said system.

[Adin]

I have an idea! Why don't we combine both systems!

And then people start pointing out how bad my idea is.

You mean like the mixed market social democracies that many modern European countries utilize?

Honestly I did not know that. Thank you for the information. Also, how about we just scrape both and come up with a new one?

[Obeyistan]

I would rather both systems be dismantled and a stateless society take place, where everyone has the freedom to pursue whichever ideology they have as long as it doesn't infringe on any other person's freedom in doing so, from communism to voluntaryism...

And how do you propose that this transition is to take place? History suggests that millions of diverse individuals will not simply embrace the revolution overnight, or exist peacefully and productively in the absence of the state.

First disobedience, then direct damage to the state, then rebellion when more people unite. Revolution happens with manpower. As for existing peacefully or productively, if you're saying people are doing so in states, you're naive.

Voluntaryism is seen as furthest on the economic right and communism furthest left. That's why I said from communism to voluntaryism.

Voluntaryism isn't inherently capitalist, nor is it an economic system at all. It is a anarchist social and organizational system. Capitalism, specifically laissez-faire capitalism, rather than agorism, is the farthest right if you still buy into the left-right paradigm.

I really shouldn't buy into it, should I? It's just the way people think. Agorism is really just anarchism with counter-economics, if I'm not mistaken.

[Solaray]

You mean like the mixed market social democracies that many modern European countries utilize?

Honestly I did not know that. Thank you for the information. Also, how about we just scrape both and come up with a new one?

Well, mainly because it's largely unnecessary. Mixed Market economies provide healthcare and welfare, and allow economic and personal freedom. Why fix what isn't broken?

[Constantinopolis]

The USA consistently had a higher average quality of life than the USSR. It's not a stretch to assume that would be the case if the Soviet system never fell.

This is true, which is another reason why the comparison between the United States and Soviet Union is flawed: The United States was the industrial powerhouse of the world before the USSR even existed. The US had an enormous historical head start in terms of industrializing and developing living standards. The USSR was gradually catching up, but it was going to take them many more decades before they could realistically aim to match US living standards.

A better comparison would be between the Soviet Union and another country of similar size that started industrializing at about the same time - like Brazil, for example.

[The New Sea Territory]

And how do you propose that this transition is to take place? History suggests that millions of diverse individuals will not simply embrace the revolution overnight, or exist peacefully and productively in the absence of the state.

First disobedience, then direct damage to the state, then rebellion when more people unite. Revolution happens with manpower. As for existing peacefully or productively, if you're saying people are doing so in states, you're naive.

Voluntaryism isn't inherently capitalist, nor is it an economic system at all. It is a anarchist social and organizational system. Capitalism, specifically laissez-faire capitalism, rather than agorism, is the farthest right if you still buy into the left-right paradigm.

I really shouldn't buy into it, should I? It's just the way people think. Agorism is really just anarchism with counter-economics, if I'm not mistaken.

No, not really. It's a very general way of distinguishing ideas, and some systems (mutualism, corporatism, etc) don't fit on it. Agorism, the organizational method, is counter-economics. Agorism, the socioeconomic system, is essentially individualist self-reliant economics.

[The New Sea Territory]

I would rather both systems be dismantled and a stateless society take place, where everyone has the freedom to pursue whichever ideology they have as long as it doesn't infringe on any other person's freedom in doing so, from communism to voluntaryism...

And how do you propose that this transition is to take place? History suggests that millions of diverse individuals will not simply embrace the revolution overnight, or exist peacefully and productively in the absence of the state.

There are dozens of theories that would derail this thread if we alerted you of all of them. Violent revolution is one of them that is seldom advocated for.

[Adin]

Honestly I did not know that. Thank you for the information. Also, how about we just scrape both and come up with a new one?

Well, mainly because it's largely unnecessary. Mixed Market economies provide healthcare and welfare, and allow economic and personal freedom. Why fix what isn't broken?

*Shrugs* That is correct, but I was talking about the individual ones. Also, I don't believe that the United States will change its system because A) They're lazy B) There is too much corruption or C) They are use to this system far too much.

[Constantinopolis]

Honestly I did not know that. Thank you for the information. Also, how about we just scrape both and come up with a new one?

Well, mainly because it's largely unnecessary. Mixed Market economies provide healthcare and welfare, and allow economic and personal freedom. Why fix what isn't broken?

They also tend to have high unemployment rates, and it's not clear how much longer they will survive in the face of capitalist globalization.

[Valkalan]

And how do you propose that this transition is to take place? History suggests that millions of diverse individuals will not simply embrace the revolution overnight, or exist peacefully and productively in the absence of the state.

There are dozens of theories that would derail this thread if we alerted you of all of them. Violent revolution is one of them that is seldom advocated for.

I have no doubt that any man-made institution such as a government can be destroyed. My question is what will become of the people afterword?

[Valkalan]

What makes you think that the people of the USSR, a nation that lacked prosperity or any great personal liberty, would want to remain a part of that cesspool?

Uh... first of all the people of the USSR were better off than the great majority of the world - hardly a "cesspool" - and secondly, there are many multi-ethnic countries in the world with far worse conditions than the USSR ever had, and which nevertheless do not have any significant secessionist movements.

Just to use the biggest example, India doesn't seem to be in any danger of breaking up any time soon, despite being (a) extremely ethnically diverse, and (b) far worse off than the USSR ever was. I wonder why that is so? Oh yeah, because people do not automatically demand independence every time they are upset about something.

Yet that is precisely what happened.

As for the question of economic management, I gave the USSR the benefit of the doubt that they would have sought a more market-oriented model, especially given the perestroika reforms. However seeing as how wish to image that the 21th century USSR had retained a command economy, perhaps you should examine other extant command economies. Cuba and North Korea will suffice.

The perestroika reforms were the thing that destroyed the Soviet economy, and ultimately the USSR itself.

As for Cuba and North Korea, they were always among the worst-performing command economies in the world, and far behind the USSR itself. Having said that, however, the Cuban economy is doing pretty well, actually. Not great, but not badly either.

If I recall correctly, the economy of the USSR was already preforming rather poorly prior to the introduction of perestroika. You claim that Cuba and North Korea had the worse performing command economies, yet the facts show that command economics are some of the worst preforming economic models.

As for Cuba, I'm not sure that you have seen the full picture.

[United Marxist Nations]

Find one famine the USSR experienced following the end if the War famine of '48 (called that because it was caused by war damage).

Is that so? All I see is incompetent economic management, at best.

Did you even read my post before you posted that? What part of '48 did you not understand?

[United Marxist Nations]

The USA consistently had a higher average quality of life than the USSR. It's not a stretch to assume that would be the case if the Soviet system never fell.

This is true, which is another reason why the comparison between the United States and Soviet Union is flawed: The United States was the industrial powerhouse of the world before the USSR even existed. The US had an enormous historical head start in terms of industrializing and developing living standards. The USSR was gradually catching up, but it was going to take them many more decades before they could realistically aim to match US living standards.

A better comparison would be between the Soviet Union and another country of similar size that started industrializing at about the same time - like Brazil, for example.

^This.

[Valkalan]

Is that so? All I see is incompetent economic management, at best.

Did you even read my post before you posted that? What part of '48 did you not understand?

You cited war damages as an excuse, but I don't you understand that even in periods of peace the USSR consistently displayed poor economic management.

[United Marxist Nations]

I think we can all agree that anyone who wants to live in the Soviet system is a masochist.

Stop speaking untruth Comrade! Thought Crime is ungood for all of us!

Or maybe I just want a decent standard of living despite picking a field that offers specialized job opportunities. I mean, there's not a lot of job security or well-paying jobs in the field I've chosen in the country.