User not logged in - login - register
Home Calendar Books School Tool Photo Gallery Message Boards Users Statistics Advertise Site Info
go to bottom | |
 Message Boards » » Late Capitalism Page 1 2 3 [4], Prev  
dtownral
All American
23806 Posts
user info
edit post

if socialist ideology is why rainforests are cut down, what's the cause of them being cut down outside of socialist countries?

1/11/2019 10:19:43 AM

adultswim
All American
8300 Posts
user info
edit post

Btw life expectancy doubled in 60 years in Soviet Russia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_Soviet_Union#Life_expectancy_and_infant_mortality

Quote :
"After the October revolution, the life expectancy for all age groups went up. A newborn child in 1926-27 had a life expectancy of 44.4 years, up from 32.3 years thirty years before. In 1958-59 the life expectancy for newborns went up to 68.6 years. This improvement was seen in itself by some as immediate proof that the socialist system was superior to the capitalist system."

1/11/2019 12:30:12 PM

HCH
All American
3487 Posts
user info
edit post

Life expectancy in Communist Russia is never a good argument. Ever.

Hey look, the life expectancy in Cambodia under Pol Pot increased as well. Well, that proves socialism is a better system to capitalism. Just ignore all the genocide and murder by the authoritarian governments in each of those countries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Cambodia#Life_expectancy

And how could you exclude the next sentence from the section you posted above:

Quote :
"After the October revolution, the life expectancy for all age groups went up. A newborn child in 1926-27 had a life expectancy of 44.4 years, up from 32.3 years thirty years before. In 1958-59 the life expectancy for newborns went up to 68.6 years. This improvement was seen in itself by some as immediate proof that the socialist system was superior to the capitalist system.[8] The life expectancy in Soviet Union were fairly stable during most years, although in the 1970s went slightly down probably because of alcohol abuse."


Gee, wonder what could have led to all of that alcohol abuse?

Do you realize that you are defending a system that is used by the most ruthless regimes?

[Edited on January 11, 2019 at 1:31 PM. Reason : 1]

1/11/2019 1:29:26 PM

dtownral
All American
23806 Posts
user info
edit post

you seem to have forgotten that you were the one who implied that life expectancy increased because of capitalism

1/11/2019 1:32:12 PM

HCH
All American
3487 Posts
user info
edit post

Yes. Other countries couldn't possibly benefit from advances in medicine made in the US.

1/11/2019 1:37:16 PM

dtownral
All American
23806 Posts
user info
edit post

oh, so then government funded research is responsible

1/11/2019 1:44:29 PM

LoneSnark
All American
12148 Posts
user info
edit post

Government funded research doesn't make the populous rich enough to afford the medicine. But thank you for admitting the US healthcare system is socialist.

1/11/2019 2:00:11 PM

dtownral
All American
23806 Posts
user info
edit post

research is, yes. it's interesting to see a moronic capitalist admit that though.

1/11/2019 2:07:35 PM

adultswim
All American
8300 Posts
user info
edit post

Quality of life and life expectancy dropped massively in Russia when they returned to a privatized economy. The older generation, to this day, despite massive propaganda campaigns, views Stalin and the Soviet Union in a positive light.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/06/29/in-russia-nostalgia-for-soviet-union-and-positive-feelings-about-stalin/

I highly, highly recommend that anyone with a remote interest in socialism listen to this podcast episode on Stalin. While he obviously made mistakes, what the Soviet Union achieved under Lenin & Stalin should be hailed as a monumental achievement, given the time period. Had the Soviets not risen to power so quickly, and had they not crushed counter-revolutionaries, it's pretty certain that Hitler would have won. Much of the propaganda surrounding communism and communist countries can be traced back to literal German fascists, con artists, and later, the CIA. We don't need a Stalinist version of socialism today, but that doesn't mean we need to accept fascist lies and give people like HCH illegitimate fuel (100 MILLION DIED UNDER COMMUNISM)

https://revolutionaryleftradio.libsyn.com/joseph-mother-fucking-stain

Quote :
"Gee, wonder what could have led to all of that alcohol abuse?"


Gee, wonder why I didn't include that sentence?

Quote :
"The life expectancy in Soviet Union were fairly stable during most years, although in the 1970s went slightly down probably because of alcohol abuse.[citation needed]"


[Edited on January 11, 2019 at 2:57 PM. Reason : .]

1/11/2019 2:47:52 PM

LoneSnark
All American
12148 Posts
user info
edit post

Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union does not have what we capitalists would call a "free enterprise" economy. The biggest short-coming is private property rights, as only those with favorable political connections enjoy safety in this regard. It is quite a bit closer to a 3rd world kleptocracy than a modern free market economy such as Sweden.

As for "Quality of life was better under Stalin", that is akin to Americans today that say "quality of life was better in the 60s" which statistics show is objectively false in every conceivable way. Statistics are hard to compare in the Soviet Union, but for Americans, it is just false. What they mean to say is life was better when they were young and still had their youth with parents to help absorb life's problems for them.

[Edited on January 11, 2019 at 8:56 PM. Reason : .,.]

1/11/2019 8:51:31 PM

GrumpyGOP
yovo yovo bonsoir
17690 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"Btw life expectancy doubled in 60 years in Soviet Russia"


You know, I hate Communism passionately, but I am willing to allow that it is probably better than feudalism. The piece you quoted does a fine job of comparing apples to, like, absolute monarchy oranges.

Quote :
"Quality of life and life expectancy dropped massively in Russia when they returned to a privatized economy."


Interesting choice of words. I suppose it was a privatized economy, but it wasn't a capitalist one, and it wasn't "returning" to it. Russia became a kleptocracy overnight. Kleptocracy is not capitalism, which generally presupposes things like "rule of law" and a voluntary exchange of goods and services.

Quote :
"While he obviously made mistakes"


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excess_mortality_in_the_Soviet_Union_under_Joseph_Stalin

Mistakes, such as murdering 3 million people. And that's at the very low end of the estimates. Also invading Finland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, splitting Poland with Hitler, and encouraging the Ukrainians to starve to death.

Quote :
"Had the Soviets not risen to power so quickly, and had they not crushed counter-revolutionaries, it's pretty certain that Hitler would have won."


This statement is one of the more outlandish counterfactuals I've seen on here, which is saying something. It manages to let Stalin off the hook for murdering everybody and ignore the infinite range of other possibilities, which might have involved a non-Communist Russia that didn't murder everybody.

1/13/2019 9:17:39 PM

adultswim
All American
8300 Posts
user info
edit post

Being a history person, I think you would find the podcast I linked very interesting, that’s all I’m going to say.

1/13/2019 9:25:41 PM

HCH
All American
3487 Posts
user info
edit post

Quality of Life is high in North Korea. Just ask them.

Quote :
"While he obviously made mistakes, what the Soviet Union achieved under Lenin & Stalin should be hailed as a monumental achievement, given the time period."
Dude, really? The gulags were not a mistake and is not a "fascist lie".

Please provide us your defense of Mao and the Khmer Rouge, as well. Or have you not listened to a podcast about that yet?

1/14/2019 9:34:22 AM

dtownral
All American
23806 Posts
user info
edit post

the US incarceration rate is higher than the soviet gulags, we allow forced slave labor of our prisoners, we allow capital punishment.

i guess that's okay because we have an effective justice system that is working fine?

1/14/2019 9:39:57 AM

adultswim
All American
8300 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"The gulags were not a mistake"


Agreed. They were necessary to prevent kulak traitors from sabotaging the socialist collectivization process.

More on gulags, from none other than the CIA. They weren't nearly as bad as you think:

https://old.reddit.com/r/communism/comments/9mn1sl/the_truth_about_the_soviet_gulag_surprisingly/

More reading on the collectivization process in general (not unique to socialism)

Quote :
"The "millions of deaths" under Mao and Stalin happened during a process called collectivization, which is not unique to communism. Collectivization is the transition from individualized subsistence farming to integrated, large scale agricultural production. This process is a necessary precursor to the large, dense and high-population density cities necessary to sustain modern industrial production. The process of collectivization had already happened in the West by the 1930s, but it hadn't happened yet in China or Russia.

Of course, in both the West and the East, collectivization was "forced". The process by which collective agricultural production was achieved in Europe was called the Enclosure, whereby individual subsistence peasants were forced off their ancestral lands in a long, laborious process that involved all sorts of political and rhetorical justification. It included witch-hunts against land-owning peasant women, anti-semitic pogroms, campaigns of mass butchery against peasant resistance (such as the butchering of 100,000 peasants in 1525 by the ruling classes in response to their uprising in Germany). It took three centuries to complete the process of collectivization of agriculture in Europe and undoubtedly cost many tens of of millions of lives.

Of course, the collectivization of land was not limited to Europe. To fuel the growth of early capitalist industry, colonial policy forced people off their land too. The majority of excess deaths in India, Ireland, North America and South America can be clearly attributed to the seizure and enclosure of land for collective farming, with the early United States alone responsible for many tens of millions of deaths via the slave trade, which was the most brutal possible form of collectivization: literally buying people and forcing them, by whip and gun, to work on collective farms (plantations).

All told, the process of Western agricultural collectivization cost HUNDREDS of millions of lives and took THREE CENTURIES. It spanned several continents and was mediated by absolute butchery on levels that literally defy comprehension. It staggers the mind the brutality by which the West was built.

Let us consider, briefly, the contrary situation:

Undoubtedly, millions of excess deaths occurred in both the U.S.S.R and the People's Republic of China as a result of forced collectivization. These deaths, like many of the deaths during Western collectivization, were the result of starvation caused by exporting food from producing regions to consuming regions. The key difference, however, is that collectivization and industrialization had a dangerous relationship in the West: the logic of profit demanded the development of an industrial base, no matter the human cost, allowing the fluctuation of the market to drag agricultural development and industrialization in uneven, contradictory back-and-forths, repeatedly building up and tearing down at will. In the Communist East, industrialization and collectivization occurred simultaneously under the conditions of an economy not organized towards profit.

The principle cause for the excess deaths, aside from drought and counter-revolution, were errors in planning (the causes of which are widespread and do not exculpate the Soviets or the Chinese Communists, whose heavy handed collection policy contributed to falsified grain production reports). However, if you consider all of this, all of these things, a population roughly equal to the total population of the industrial capitalist world achieved collective agriculture not in centuries, not in decades, but in years with death tolls not in the hundreds of millions, but, by even the most lavish Cold War accounts, the tens caused largely not by greed but by the need to develop a productive industrial base to contest the Nazi threat and justified not by lies about racial superiority, but grand truths about equality and progress.

The difference is the invisible hand of the market escapes culpability, whereas the fundamental honesty and transparency of the communist project opens it up to (often justified) criticism."


Quote :
"Please provide us your defense of Mao and the Khmer Rouge, as well."


Haven't read much on Mao, but I imagine the exaggerations are very similar to those surrounding the USSR. You won't find many real socialists defending the Khmer Rouge. Pol Pot was originally backed by the US and actual socialists in Vietnam fought his government and deposed them. Funny how you fail to mention Cuba, btw.

But overall, this is a moot conversation. Material conditions were different back then, and a socialist United States would look very different than developing countries like Russia, China, Vietnam, etc.

[Edited on January 14, 2019 at 10:46 AM. Reason : .]

1/14/2019 10:42:34 AM

adultswim
All American
8300 Posts
user info
edit post

Honestly, at a minimum, every worker in the United States should be a market socialist. Workers defending a system where rich people siphon off the value of your labor to enrich themselves is just hilarious to me.

1/14/2019 10:49:12 AM

HCH
All American
3487 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"the US incarceration rate is higher than the soviet gulags, we allow forced slave labor of our prisoners, we allow capital punishment.

i guess that's okay because we have an effective justice system that is working fine?"


It's not ok. Which is why we just passed significant bipartisan judicial reform, and will continue to freelydiscuss and make changes to our governmental structures. That's the difference between our system of government, and the authoritarian systems of government you keep defending above (we seem to have moved on from market systems). We still have imperfect people making imperfect laws, but it doesn't require a revolution to overthrow the group abusing its power.

1/14/2019 11:06:39 AM

dtownral
All American
23806 Posts
user info
edit post

lol, show me a single post where i defended authoritarian governments

1/14/2019 11:34:47 AM

adultswim
All American
8300 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"We still have imperfect people making imperfect laws, but it doesn't require a revolution to overthrow the group abusing its power."


Who is calling for an overthrow? Marxist socialism is fluid and considers material conditions in the world. Conditions in developing countries are entirely different than conditions in the US, currently. Apart from impending climate doom, there's no reason why we can't democratically move toward socialism.

1/14/2019 11:46:59 AM

GrumpyGOP
yovo yovo bonsoir
17690 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"Agreed. They were necessary to prevent kulak traitors from sabotaging the socialist collectivization process."


So I'm aware that people wrongly through "gulag" around as though it were synonymous with "concentration camp," which is false. But the moment your political ideology starts justifying sending everyone who disagrees with it to Siberia, that's a problem. Dressing it up in fancy commie-speak doesn't change the fact that you basically said, "We needed these places so we had somewhere to forcibly relocate people who disagreed with us."

The American system is flawed, but I think on balance it's to our credit that we don't make every half-baked Marxist move to North Dakota.

Quote :
"Workers defending a system where rich people siphon off the value of your labor to enrich themselves is just hilarious to me."


It's hard for me to imagine a more backwards way of looking at it. Capital doesn't "siphon off the value of your labor," it pays you for your labor the same way everybody pays for every other good or service. Simply performing labor doesn't entitle you to money. I can go slave away digging a big hole in my yard, and that's hard labor, but nobody's going to pay me for it.

Quote :
"All told, the process of Western agricultural collectivization cost HUNDREDS of millions of lives and took THREE CENTURIES. It spanned several continents and was mediated by absolute butchery on levels that literally defy comprehension."


And very little of it took place under a system that could be described as "capitalist."

This is a fun game you have, where you treat "feudalism" and "capitalism" as being the same thing, but they're not. Market liberals don't burn witches; aristocrats and theocrats do. This dude is bringing up shit from 1525, a time when the most liberal political thing going was Henry VIII establishing the Church of England so that he, personally, could fuck other women. Give me a break.

1/14/2019 11:56:37 AM

adultswim
All American
8300 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"So I'm aware that people wrongly through "gulag" around as though it were synonymous with "concentration camp," which is false. But the moment your political ideology starts justifying sending everyone who disagrees with it to Siberia, that's a problem. Dressing it up in fancy commie-speak doesn't change the fact that you basically said, "We needed these places so we had somewhere to forcibly relocate people who disagreed with us."

The American system is flawed, but I think on balance it's to our credit that we don't make every half-baked Marxist move to North Dakota."


Kulaks didn't just "disagree". They were active saboteurs. They burnt their own crops to avoid sharing with peasants. They infiltrated the Bolsheviks to sow discord, even taking leadership positions and purging as many true communists as possible. They were terrorists. Dissidents were roped in of course, and that is regrettable, but not unsurprising given the time period and the surrounding conditions. And again, not something most socialists would praise today.

Quote :
"It's hard for me to imagine a more backwards way of looking at it. Capital doesn't "siphon off the value of your labor," it pays you for your labor the same way everybody pays for every other good or service. Simply performing labor doesn't entitle you to money. I can go slave away digging a big hole in my yard, and that's hard labor, but nobody's going to pay me for it."


Of course not all labor is necessary, but a capitalistic free market does not efficiently allocate labor resources for society's benefit. It allocates resources for profit, and that profit goes to the wealthy, not the workers. At the very least, I don't understand why you wouldn't want market socialism. It's a “free market” economy, but with shared profits instead of siphoned profits.

[Edited on January 14, 2019 at 1:03 PM. Reason : .]

1/14/2019 12:54:08 PM

LoneSnark
All American
12148 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"Kulaks didn't just "disagree". They were active saboteurs. They burnt their own crops to avoid sharing with peasants."

You mean, to avoid having them confiscated by the government. Workers will sometimes sabotage their factories to avoid the owners bringing in scabs to break up a union strike. Do you call them terrorists too?

If it is the case that land is divided to the point that productivity is being hindered, then a profit can be made by buying the land from the owners and collectivizing it that way. This is how land concentration proceeds in capitalist countries, no need to confiscate and wage war on the countryside as Stalin did. However, ideology gets in the way of peace and good government. Especially since evidence suggests collectivization itself did not actually increase productivity. That others in history, even 21st century Americans, have engaged in land confiscation at the point of the gun does not exempt Stalin for his evil behavior.

Quote :
"a capitalistic free market does not efficiently allocate labor resources for society's benefit. It allocates resources for profit, and that profit goes to the wealthy, not the workers."

It is very true, the two allocation mechanisms do not always result in the same answer. However, they so closely overlap that many tend to make the simplification of presuming that they are in fact the same. There are libraries worth of books outlining all the instances when they aren't the same (externalities and the like), but outside those instances, yea, it isn't too far from reality to presume they are the same.

[Edited on January 14, 2019 at 5:43 PM. Reason : .,.]

1/14/2019 5:42:10 PM

adultswim
All American
8300 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"It is very true, the two allocation mechanisms do not always result in the same answer. However, they so closely overlap that many tend to make the simplification of presuming that they are in fact the same. There are libraries worth of books outlining all the instances when they aren't the same (externalities and the like), but outside those instances, yea, it isn't too far from reality to presume they are the same."


Yeah gonna have to disagree with you there.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/mar/16/capitalism-efficient-we-can-do-better

1/14/2019 5:53:09 PM

LoneSnark
All American
12148 Posts
user info
edit post

So, you want me to find an article from theguardian about government waste a post it?

And as if government activities don't result in inequality and environmental degradation?

1/14/2019 7:37:56 PM

 Message Boards » The Soap Box » Late Capitalism Page 1 2 3 [4], Prev  
go to top | |
Admin Options : move topic | lock topic

© 2019 by The Wolf Web - All Rights Reserved.
The material located at this site is not endorsed, sponsored or provided by or on behalf of North Carolina State University.
Powered by CrazyWeb v2.37 - our disclaimer.