Anti Capitalist Discussion Thread I: Seize the toothbrushes!

[Taihei Tengoku]

The economy under the Tsars pre 1917 was poorer than Western Europe was during the middle ages. And had lower living standards than most of sub saharah Africa.

The economic and industrial gains under the USSR are undeniable; the biggest issues were the lack of democracy within the economic structures (all power to the soviets, not the bureaucrats) which was consolidated after the death of Lenin; and the poor foreign policy which focused on the consolidation of existing power rather than the spread of Socialism.

Would those economic gains not happen under a capitalist or tsarist regime?

it's time to link this paper again

[The Grene Knyght]

The economy under the Tsars pre 1917 was poorer than Western Europe was during the middle ages. And had lower living standards than most of sub saharah Africa.

The economic and industrial gains under the USSR are undeniable; the biggest issues were the lack of democracy within the economic structures (all power to the soviets, not the bureaucrats) which was consolidated after the death of Lenin; and the poor foreign policy which focused on the consolidation of existing power rather than the spread of Socialism.

Would those economic gains not happen under a capitalist or tsarist regime?

No lol. I would have though that that'd be pretty clear to anyone with even a cursory knowledge of the tsarist period and the decade or two immediately after.

Edit: which is, of course, not to say that this economic growth was necessarily a good thing - considering, for example, the human cost argument - just that there is no way it would've or could've happened under the tsars.

[Taihei Tengoku]

Extrapolating the 1885-1913 trend basically tracks the long-term growth of the USSR. Full recovery didn't happen until 1967. Боже, Царя храни?

[Kennlind]

Ideally I'd love to support Distributism. I recently finished the Hound of Distributism and Rerum Novarum and it's really interesting and something I could strongly get behind, however it seems rather idealistic. For now I just advocate a variant of the Eco-Social Market with heavy influences from Catholic social teaching.

[Orostan]

Probably not. I doubt a Capitalist Russia would’ve been able to have any “good” economic circumstances after WWII.

A capitalist Russia surely would have accepted Marshall Plan aid, however.

That wouldn't have made Russian industry more profitable, only funded its reconstruction

Extrapolating the 1885-1913 trend basically tracks the long-term growth of the USSR. Full recovery didn't happen until 1967. Боже, Царя храни?

As Constantinopolis said before, The USSR took on the largest land invasion in history, the Russian Civil war, and the cold war. Capitalism with nothing unusual happening and socialism with the largest war in history, one of the most violent civil wars, and the cold war achieving the same result is a pretty significant argument for socialism.

[Dejanic]

A question to ML's would then be, what went wrong in the USSR from your perspective? Why did the USSR stagnate and eventually collapse, along with other eastern bloc states? I've got my own opinion but I'm curious as to what any ML's have to say on it.

[Taihei Tengoku]

A capitalist Russia surely would have accepted Marshall Plan aid, however.

That wouldn't have made Russian industry more profitable, only funded its reconstruction

Extrapolating the 1885-1913 trend basically tracks the long-term growth of the USSR. Full recovery didn't happen until 1967. Боже, Царя храни?

As Constantinopolis said before, The USSR took on the largest land invasion in history, the Russian Civil war, and the cold war. Capitalism with nothing unusual happening and socialism with the largest war in history, one of the most violent civil wars, and the cold war achieving the same result is a pretty significant argument for socialism.

As I have said before other nations recover fairly quickly from the same relative damage, the USSR did not. Even in peacetime socialism (the Five Year Plan) is inferior to revisionism (NEP, Dengism).

[Nordengrund]

cmon man just run with the joke

Badumtish.

[MERIZoC]

Economic growth is necessary to give everyone a better standard of living.

[Orostan]

That wouldn't have made Russian industry more profitable, only funded its reconstruction


As Constantinopolis said before, The USSR took on the largest land invasion in history, the Russian Civil war, and the cold war. Capitalism with nothing unusual happening and socialism with the largest war in history, one of the most violent civil wars, and the cold war achieving the same result is a pretty significant argument for socialism.

As I have said before other nations recover fairly quickly from the same relative damage, the USSR did not. Even in peacetime socialism (the Five Year Plan) is inferior to revisionism (NEP, Dengism).

It may seem that markets preform better than socialism if a country is economically isolated under socialism, and not under a market system. The USSR took the most damage out of any nation from WW2, and took an enormous amount of damage as well from the Russian Civil War. When it was recovering to both, it was economically isolated from the West and other countries. The USSR recovered faster under socialism than it would have under capitalism. It also did not get any aid for rebuilding.

[The Widening Gyre]

Sustainable, well-distributed growth that reduces income inequality and doesn't put additional pressure on our planet in terms of carbon emissions/fossil fuel usage.

And world peace and a puppy and a pony for every good little boy and girl!

[Dejanic]

As I have said before other nations recover fairly quickly from the same relative damage, the USSR did not. Even in peacetime socialism (the Five Year Plan) is inferior to revisionism (NEP, Dengism).

It may seem that markets preform better than socialism if a country is economically isolated under socialism, and not under a market system. The USSR took the most damage out of any nation from WW2, and took an enormous amount of damage as well from the Russian Civil War. When it was recovering to both, it was economically isolated from the West and other countries. The USSR recovered faster under socialism than it would have under capitalism. It also did not get any aid for rebuilding.

This is also considering the fact that the majority of the worlds nations were Capitalist, so this growth happened with the majority of the planet utilizing a separate economic system and generally in opposition to the USSR. Had the majority of the world been Socialist at this point the disparity would be even greater in favour of Socialist recovery.

[Infected Mushroom]

Capitalism is a form of exploitation.

Everyone is over-worked; you have to slave away for some profiteering office overlord or get fired. Everywhere, people only care about money, money, money.

Capitalism = Freedom, yeah right.

[Dejanic]

Capitalism is a form of exploitation.

Everyone is over-worked; you have to slave away for some profiteering office overlord or get fired. Everywhere, people only care about money, money, money.

Capitalism = Freedom, yeah right.

Woah, weren't you a Libertarian before?

Had a change of heart.....comrade?

[Great Minarchistan]

As Constantinopolis said before, The USSR took on the largest land invasion in history, the Russian Civil war, and the cold war. Capitalism with nothing unusual happening and socialism with the largest war in history

Hmmm, you seem to lack a bit of Russian history. Does this event ring a bell for you?

one of the most violent civil wars, and the cold war achieving the same result is a pretty significant argument for socialism.

Except you ignore the period following the collapse of USSR, where GDP fell by half. Taking results at the height of the country or of any other data to claim how good it is equals dishonesty.

[Great Minarchistan]

Economic growth is necessary to give everyone a better standard of living.

Yep, can't wait to feel the living standards of the world in 1800 when 95% of the population was below the poverty line.

[Community Values]

Would those economic gains not happen under a capitalist or tsarist regime?

No lol. I would have though that that'd be pretty clear to anyone with even a cursory knowledge of the tsarist period and the decade or two immediately after.

Edit: which is, of course, not to say that this economic growth was necessarily a good thing - considering, for example, the human cost argument - just that there is no way it would've or could've happened under the tsars.

"no way it would've or could've" is ridiculous. Russia was in the process of industrializing by the onset of the Great War.
The question is whether or not a country with a primarily capitalist (maybe mercantilist) economic system would be able to have the same amount of industrialization in the same amount of time as a ML system

[Orostan]

As Constantinopolis said before, The USSR took on the largest land invasion in history, the Russian Civil war, and the cold war. Capitalism with nothing unusual happening and socialism with the largest war in history

Hmmm, you seem to lack a bit of Russian history. Does this event ring a bell for you?

one of the most violent civil wars, and the cold war achieving the same result is a pretty significant argument for socialism.

Except you ignore the period following the collapse of USSR, where GDP fell by half. Taking results at the height of the country or of any other data to claim how good it is equals dishonesty.

The Russo-Japanese war was no where near as devastating as WWII. It did damage the Russian economy, but not anywhere near to the same degree as WWII did to the USSR. '

When the USSR fell, it was not the USSR anymore. So we do not count it as part of the USSR's economic history. It was under Boris Yeltsin's government - a Capitalist government - that destroyed the Russian economy. This is an argument against Capitalism.

[Great Minarchistan]

To be honest, I would love a hybrid between a socialist and a capitalist economy.

Socialism and capitalism are macroeconomic systems. What you are referring to is also called a social-democracy, a capitalist system coupled with redistributive policies. Sounds goofy but it's important to differ those lines.

Socialist as in maybe a high tax rate

Upon whom?

to maintain the free healthcare, public transport, and healthcare.

twice healthcare but ok Hmmmm, funding only those don't cost a lot.

And maybe to distribute the wealth evenly. It's totally not because I am jealous of millionaires or billionaires. I'm sure that what they did in the past earns them the cash.

Question: How are you going to encourage people to work through more difficult ranks when they are going to have their income shared evenly with people that took easier ranks? Example: Say a person didn't even complete college and now works on McDonald's for $8/hour. Meanwhile, a person that earned their Master's degree works as a lawyer for $50/hour. According to your policy, both would receive $29 per hour worked. Why should I study several years more to get a Master's when I can not even complete college and earn the same thing as a guy that got their degree?

At the same time, maybe a healthy dose of capitalism; not too much, but enough to drive forward innovation.

So basically economic freedom full steam ahead.

[Nioya]

I’m against capitalism but I’m not sure there are viable alternatives. Also not sure how to apply this to my nation.

[Great Minarchistan]

The Russo-Japanese war was no where near as devastating as WWII. It did damage the Russian economy, but not anywhere near to the same degree as WWII did to the USSR.

"Russia had lost two of its three fleets. Only its Black Sea Fleet remained, and this was the result of an earlier treaty that had prevented the fleet from leaving the Black Sea. Japan became the sixth-most powerful naval force by combined tonnage, while the Russian Navy declined to one barely stronger than that of Austria–Hungary.[96] The actual costs of the war were large enough to affect the Russian economy and, despite grain exports, the nation developed an external balance of payments deficit. The cost of military re-equipment and re-expansion after 1905 pushed the economy further into deficit, although the size of the deficit was obscured.[97]" according to the same page linked.

Nonetheless, if you analyze the GDP growth following the aftermath of the war, you can see it decreased by 19.1% (yes, I zoomed the chart at 500% and used a ruler to measure every millimeter), while USSR suffered a loss of 17.6%. No biggie huh?

When the USSR fell, it was not the USSR anymore. So we do not count it as part of the USSR's economic history.

wew

It was under Boris Yeltsin's government - a Capitalist government - that destroyed the Russian economy. This is an argument against Capitalism.

Question: If you start off your government with a failing economy (which was clearly not the inheritance of capitalism) that will end up like an anemic zombie like Japan if not fixed, will you do the harsh adjustments or end up stagnated? Yea.

[Infected Mushroom]

Capitalism is a form of exploitation.

Everyone is over-worked; you have to slave away for some profiteering office overlord or get fired. Everywhere, people only care about money, money, money.

Capitalism = Freedom, yeah right.

Woah, weren't you a Libertarian before?

Had a change of heart.....comrade?

I support freedom of contract, but not capitalism

[Taihei Tengoku]

Hmmm, you seem to lack a bit of Russian history. Does this event ring a bell for you?


Except you ignore the period following the collapse of USSR, where GDP fell by half. Taking results at the height of the country or of any other data to claim how good it is equals dishonesty.

The Russo-Japanese war was no where near as devastating as WWII. It did damage the Russian economy, but not anywhere near to the same degree as WWII did to the USSR. '

When the USSR fell, it was not the USSR anymore. So we do not count it as part of the USSR's economic history. It was under Boris Yeltsin's government - a Capitalist government - that destroyed the Russian economy. This is an argument against Capitalism.

? The Big Tank began in the 80s, a result of Brezhnevite rot dating from the late 50s and Stalin shooting the country through the heart in the 30s and 40s. The nonsense public price system was finally incorporating the black market people used to actually get their goods and lo and behold savings denoted in the nonsense price system were destroyed.

As I have said before other nations recover fairly quickly from the same relative damage, the USSR did not. Even in peacetime socialism (the Five Year Plan) is inferior to revisionism (NEP, Dengism).

It may seem that markets preform better than socialism if a country is economically isolated under socialism, and not under a market system. The USSR took the most damage out of any nation from WW2, and took an enormous amount of damage as well from the Russian Civil War. When it was recovering to both, it was economically isolated from the West and other countries. The USSR recovered faster under socialism than it would have under capitalism. It also did not get any aid for rebuilding.

You cannot have exploitation theory and the embargo excuse at the same time. Either exchange is good or it is bad, decide.

[The Glorious Third Reign of Templedom]

Cuba and North Korea are fully capitalist political economies.

Generalized commodity production, class property, wage labor, and thus all the exploitation and alienation entailed in the value form, continue to exist in both states.

Really? Hey that's really cool... can I buy some shares in Kim Jung Un, Inc? (I love monopolies/make hay while sun shines, etc.)

[Hakons]

Which of these poll options have actually been implemented? Which of these poll options have worked in the long term?