NationStates

Orostan wrote:

Elwher wrote:
If one wants to compare similar socialist vs capitalist countries, we actually have one good current example and one other equally good one from the recent past. In both cases, they were one country split into socialist and capitalist halves.

East and West Germany: 1991, the year of unification, GDR had a per capita income of less than half that of FRG. and an unemployment rate about 25% higher. Unit labor costs were also about 25% higher. These figures come from a 2015 article in The Economist, a reasonably reputable source https://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2015/10/daily-chart-comparing-eastern-and-western-germany

North and South Korea: According to Index Mundi https://www.indexmundi.com/factbook/compare/south-korea.north-korea, the average life span in DPRK is 70.7 years, ROK is 82.5. Per capita GDP was %1,800 vs #37,500 in 2015. Industrial production growth rates: 1% vs 3.5%.

In both cases, the countries were geographically similar, being portions of the same country, and started from an identical background, the aftermath of WWII. They did not, however, progress equally as shown by the economies years later.

1) You have a fair point, but West and East Germany did not have equal starting positions. The Soviets weren't too interested in rebuilding Eastern Germany, while West Germany got tons of American money to prevent socialism from coming in. In 1991 the GDR was experiencing economic trouble along with the rest of the Eastern block, so using numbers from there might not be the greatest indicator of economic health.
2) North Korea has been cut off from much of the world for a very long time. South Korea meanwhile has had billions of dollars of US aid funneled into it, and has had access to the rest of the world. If most of the world was socialist and North Korea was Capitalist, we'd see something similar to what we see now. And besides that, It's debatable if North Korea meets the criteria for socialism anymore.

Also, isn't NK's economy growing faster than SK's right now? I might be wrong on that, but I think I remember reading about it a while back.

in 1945, both parts of Germany were devastated by the war. That was the equal starting position. The socialist USSR, the friend of the international working man, did not want to rebuild the GDR for whatever reason (I suspect they were afraid of a rival, but there is no proof of that). The selfish, profit over people capitalist countries, on the other hand, put millions into rebuilding the FRG, allowing them to successfully compete against them on the world market. I use 1991 as that was the end of the GDR as a separate country, but current figures show that they have not yet caught up with the western part of Germany due to the problems they experienced under socialism.

Korea, again, shows the result of socialism's solidarity with the international workers vs the profiteering of the capitalist countries. I have not heard that NK is growing faster than SK, but if so, that is as a percentage of a much smaller base. If I have $100 and increase it to $150, that is a 50% growth rate. If I have $10,000 and increase it to $12,000, the rate of growth is only 20% but I have added a great deal more to my worth anyways.

Elwher wrote:

Orostan wrote:1) You have a fair point, but West and East Germany did not have equal starting positions. The Soviets weren't too interested in rebuilding Eastern Germany, while West Germany got tons of American money to prevent socialism from coming in. In 1991 the GDR was experiencing economic trouble along with the rest of the Eastern block, so using numbers from there might not be the greatest indicator of economic health.
2) North Korea has been cut off from much of the world for a very long time. South Korea meanwhile has had billions of dollars of US aid funneled into it, and has had access to the rest of the world. If most of the world was socialist and North Korea was Capitalist, we'd see something similar to what we see now. And besides that, It's debatable if North Korea meets the criteria for socialism anymore.

Also, isn't NK's economy growing faster than SK's right now? I might be wrong on that, but I think I remember reading about it a while back.

in 1945, both parts of Germany were devastated by the war. That was the equal starting position. The socialist USSR, the friend of the international working man, did not want to rebuild the GDR for whatever reason (I suspect they were afraid of a rival, but there is no proof of that). The selfish, profit over people capitalist countries, on the other hand, put millions into rebuilding the FRG, allowing them to successfully compete against them on the world market. I use 1991 as that was the end of the GDR as a separate country, but current figures show that they have not yet caught up with the western part of Germany due to the problems they experienced under socialism.

Korea, again, shows the result of socialism's solidarity with the international workers vs the profiteering of the capitalist countries. I have not heard that NK is growing faster than SK, but if so, that is as a percentage of a much smaller base. If I have $100 and increase it to $150, that is a 50% growth rate. If I have $10,000 and increase it to $12,000, the rate of growth is only 20% but I have added a great deal more to my worth anyways.

1) They did not want to rebuild Germany because they had their own problems at home. They couldn't even rebuild the GDR if they wanted too without hindering themselves. West Germany meanwhile was taking on aid from the USA, which suffered almost zero damage in WWII. The Marshall Plan's aid was not for the benefit of Western Europe, even if it did help them. It was to stop socialism from becoming popular. While it is true that the former GDR has lagged behind the rest of Germany, that isn't the fault of socialism. It's the fault of being isolated from world trade and a slow recovery from WWII, for reasons already discussed.

2) I see what you mean. The data does back you up, I will concede that, but I don't agree with your conclusions. A faster growing North Korean GDP means that the North's economy is doing better than the South's, and you cannot expect North Korea to match South Korea (a state with full access to the rest of the world) economically.

Marshall Plan money is interesting because it is inversely correlated with future performance.

Orostan wrote:

Nulla Bellum wrote:
>cites news article that specifically stated socialist countries weren't compared to high-income capitalist nations.

Yeah buddy, socialism has to go to the bottom of the list to find peers.

You didn't watch the video. Russia was specifically mentioned as a country where socialism doesn't work. Your cartoon argument needs work.

The reason why they excluded high income Capitalist countries was because there were no high income socialist countries. Russia and Eastern Europe have historically been poorer than Western Europe, and the US. They aren't as developed. What they did was compare a socialist country with a capitalist country at a similar level of development. They compared two equal countries in that regard. They found that quality of life was better in the socialist countries. That means that if Russia had remained Capitalist, there is a good chance most people would not have lived as well as they did.

You really do need to watch the video. It quite clearly explains why there are no high income socialist countries.

Orostan wrote:They used to be agrarian economies. That's why.

If that is the case, why doesn't high-income industrialized countries become Socialist?

Because it's a shit ideology maybe?

Everywhere used to be an agrarian economy

Taihei Tengoku wrote:Everywhere used to be an agrarian economy

^

Orostan wrote:

Elwher wrote:
in 1945, both parts of Germany were devastated by the war. That was the equal starting position. The socialist USSR, the friend of the international working man, did not want to rebuild the GDR for whatever reason (I suspect they were afraid of a rival, but there is no proof of that). The selfish, profit over people capitalist countries, on the other hand, put millions into rebuilding the FRG, allowing them to successfully compete against them on the world market. I use 1991 as that was the end of the GDR as a separate country, but current figures show that they have not yet caught up with the western part of Germany due to the problems they experienced under socialism.

1) They did not want to rebuild Germany because they had their own problems at home. They couldn't even rebuild the GDR if they wanted too without hindering themselves. West Germany meanwhile was taking on aid from the USA, which suffered almost zero damage in WWII. The Marshall Plan's aid was not for the benefit of Western Europe, even if it did help them. It was to stop socialism from becoming popular. While it is true that the former GDR has lagged behind the rest of Germany, that isn't the fault of socialism. It's the fault of being isolated from world trade and a slow recovery from WWII, for reasons already discussed.

I see your point, and it is valid; the USSR was devastated by war fought in its most productive regions while the US had no infrastructure damage to speak of. However, Stalin's remarks both during and after the war lead one to believe that he would not have helped rebuild Germany even if he could have, which seems contrary to the solidarity of the working class preached by Marx and his followers.

Nulla Bellum wrote:

Orostan wrote:The reason why they excluded high income Capitalist countries was because there were no high income socialist countries. Russia and Eastern Europe have historically been poorer than Western Europe, and the US. They aren't as developed. What they did was compare a socialist country with a capitalist country at a similar level of development. They compared two equal countries in that regard. They found that quality of life was better in the socialist countries. That means that if Russia had remained Capitalist, there is a good chance most people would not have lived as well as they did.

You really do need to watch the video. It quite clearly explains why there are no high income socialist countries.

1) Stop being smug.
2) I cited a literal study on why you're wrong.

Hammer Britannia wrote:

Orostan wrote:They used to be agrarian economies. That's why.

If that is the case, why doesn't high-income industrialized countries become Socialist?

Because it's a shit ideology maybe?

No. It's because, at least in the United States, extreme measures were taken to destroy socialist parties, to arrest socialist activists, and to sabotage the socialist movement in general. There used to be a militant labor movement in the US, and it took a lot of shooting to put that down.

Taihei Tengoku wrote:Everywhere used to be an agrarian economy

Yes, but Eastern Europe and China were agrarian economies when the West was made up of industrial economies.

Elwher wrote:

Orostan wrote:1) They did not want to rebuild Germany because they had their own problems at home. They couldn't even rebuild the GDR if they wanted too without hindering themselves. West Germany meanwhile was taking on aid from the USA, which suffered almost zero damage in WWII. The Marshall Plan's aid was not for the benefit of Western Europe, even if it did help them. It was to stop socialism from becoming popular. While it is true that the former GDR has lagged behind the rest of Germany, that isn't the fault of socialism. It's the fault of being isolated from world trade and a slow recovery from WWII, for reasons already discussed.

I see your point, and it is valid; the USSR was devastated by war fought in its most productive regions while the US had no infrastructure damage to speak of. However, Stalin's remarks both during and after the war lead one to believe that he would not have helped rebuild Germany even if he could have, which seems contrary to the solidarity of the working class preached by Marx and his followers.

You're right there. Stalin wasn't a very good Marxist or Socialist, even though the USSR under him was technically socialist.

wonder why

Taihei Tengoku wrote:wonder why

Because a bourgeois government will always act in the bourgeois' interest.

So then let's reduce its power, rather than giving it more.

Orostan wrote:

Taihei Tengoku wrote:wonder why

Because a bourgeois government will always act in the bourgeois' interest.

Any government will always act in the government's interest, any benefit to any other group is purely coincidental.

Elwher wrote:

Orostan wrote:Because a bourgeois government will always act in the bourgeois' interest.

Any government will always act in the government's interest, any benefit to any other group is purely coincidental.

That’s not really true. The government acts in the interests of those that keep/put it’s members into power.

The Liberated Territories wrote:So then let's reduce its power, rather than giving it more.

So then instead of troops under an American flag shooting strikers, it would be troops under a corporate flag? And Socialists, especially Communists, don't want to give the government more power.

Elwher wrote:

Orostan wrote:Because a bourgeois government will always act in the bourgeois' interest.

Any government will always act in the government's interest, any benefit to any other group is purely coincidental.

The government does not exist in a vacuum.

Irona wrote:

Elwher wrote:
Any government will always act in the government's interest, any benefit to any other group is purely coincidental.

That’s not really true. The government acts in the interests of those that keep/put it’s members into power.

Exactly. That's why Hitler met with German Industrialists before getting into power, and then when he did get into power began privatization programs and banned trade unions.

Orostan wrote:

The Liberated Territories wrote:So then let's reduce its power, rather than giving it more.

So then instead of troops under an American flag shooting strikers, it would be troops under a corporate flag? And Socialists, especially Communists, don't want to give the government more power.

Even though, Socialism can only work with constant government intervention in the lives of the civilians? Because, how is resources gonna not be hoarded by somebody without constant intervention?

Why does Orostan never address Lysenkoism as the cause of famines and food shortages in Commie countries?

Why are "droughts, famines, and floods" more devastatingly lethal in Commie countries?

Questers wrote:if classical liberalism exists, it almost definitely doesn't define american economic system LoL

The question at hand was current or HISTORICAL examples of classical liberal societies. I stated that EARLY (not contemporary) America was an example. Please read the thread before you post...LoL

Questers wrote:

36 Camera Perspective wrote:On balance, the historical evidence shows that Early America was a bastion of classical liberal thought.

That might explain why it was so poor

Yet they still offered more economic opportunity than their home countries.

And what about the Dutch? Did classical liberalism make them poor?

Elwher wrote:

Orostan wrote:Because a bourgeois government will always act in the bourgeois' interest.

Any government will always act in the government's interest, any benefit to any other group is purely coincidental.

No. The people in government might act in their own interests, but nobody truly acts in favor of government interests. What we call “government interest” is really just a series of individual interests. Methodological individualism.

36 Camera Perspective wrote:

Questers wrote:if classical liberalism exists, it almost definitely doesn't define american economic system LoL

The question at hand was current or HISTORICAL examples of classical liberal societies. I stated that EARLY (not contemporary) America was an example. Please read the thread before you post...LoL

? it doesn't characterise early america either

Questers wrote:

36 Camera Perspective wrote:
The question at hand was current or HISTORICAL examples of classical liberal societies. I stated that EARLY (not contemporary) America was an example. Please read the thread before you post...LoL

? it doesn't characterise early america either

On balance, they were. They created a society based on private property, individualism, meritocracy, and liberty.

36 Camera Perspective wrote:

Questers wrote: That might explain why it was so poor

Yet they still offered more economic opportunity than their home countries.

And what about the Dutch? Did classical liberalism make them poor?

migration to america provided opportunities in the sense it was a high-risk decision that could have paid off tremendously or totally failed.

most english people could not afford to move to the american colonies and instead chose indentured servitude as a way to pay for passage. there were also a lot of criminals transported to the colonies. in these senses america got a lot of good people (pre independence) as a consequence of selection bias: it could only take the daring, the violent, the entrepreneurial, or the highly educated, highly capable merchant class. I.e. all the things you need to start a country, in abundance. it was nothing to do with economic opportunity that arose out of allegedly better institutions or laws.

if by early america you meant like, 1780-1860 then it's a bit different, but you would still be wrong to characterise it as a classical liberal country. it seriously wasn't.

36 Camera Perspective wrote:

Questers wrote: ? it doesn't characterise early america either

On balance, they were. They created a society based on private property, individualism, meritocracy, and liberty.

er if your reading of 'classical liberalism' means 'not communist or feudalist' then yeah, sure... that's not a good reading though

1: I am aware that political and legal systems alone don’t create growth. America had bountiful natural endowments that helped it to grow so rapidly. The salient point here is not that classical liberalism alone made America what it is, but that classical liberalism allowed America to better flourish given its natural endowments. Had the Founding Fathers somehow been socialists, they wouldn’t have used America’s natural endowments to its fullest benefit.

2: I am talking about that time period, roughly.