From Superpower to third world country AND pseudoCommunism vs Capitalism=Russia

[AlexES16]

The USSR with all its faults, with the murderor Stalin make a bad name to communism. But it is really what communism failed? It is really in human nature to be extremely selfish?. Well maybe but for me that's kinda sad. The Capitalist economies look to be the best, you have the USA, Honk Kong, Canada, Chile etc. and some will even argue that Africa is socialist and that's the reason of its missery, but maybe a closer look about to the capitalist regions like USA-Canada and Europe can give us a different story, an story about how this capitalist founded its power in the consumption of Latin America, Africa and Asia for a long time and still do it, how they hire dictators and death squads to maintain their status quo. Well my country is an example of this policy, USA suported the 80s regime with guns and million of dollars, a regime that killed people. killed Arnulfo Romero, destroyed enitire towns and other cruelty, ¿Why all this? Becouse of the Anticommunism. You can also see how capitalism pollutes the planet, at the point that it puts our survival in stake. Going back to Russia, in the times of the USSR people seemed to have better health, less fires like today(watch the news about the fires in Russia), the haved access to shcool and vacation and etc. But soviet people also haved opression, beurocracy and the violation of human rights and some libertys. But most russian think that the time of USSR was better than today more market oriented system. But opression and not access to liberty is not in socialism, that is in the alck of freedom and democracy. Well i kinda overextended. What will hapen if Communism/Socialism is mixed with democracy and personal freedom? i think that is the way it suposed to be, not the soviet style, and that's what really gives fear to capitalist powers. Well i hope i don't killed by muiltinational, the last months a miner company hired assasins to kill enviromental activist, they are anger becouse the government told them to go away and stop minig, they were goint to pollute the country more.

-I will really like to see a debate here about this ideas, and that's becouse i feel that this forum is full of intelligent and maybe more conscious people than the avarage.
-I am from El Salvador

PS: Sorry for my english it kinda fails.

 

[ThomasT]

Hi Alex,

But oppression and not access to liberty is not in socialism, that is in the lack of freedom and democracy.

I agree that a socialist republic doesn't necessarily have to be oppressive. All modern countries are partly socialist, partly capitalist republics. Actually, all modern countries are pretty much oligarchies/plutocracies.

What will happen if Communism/Socialism is mixed with democracy and personal freedom?

Good question. But not likely to happen. We are, after all, animals. Particularly greedy animals. Nothing wrong with that if you happen to have been endowed with the necessary prerequisites for becoming rich. If not, then too bad. You will be at the mercy of those who have been so endowed.

I think that is the way it is supposed to be, not the soviet style, and that's what really gives fear to capitalist powers.

Well, ask yourself why it is that particularly ruthless and aggressive men tend to become leaders.

This is, I would suggest to you, 'the way it is supposed to be'. It's our nature.

These are just my current opinions. You might disagree with me. I might change my mind.

Sorry for my english it kinda fails.

Your English is much better than my Spanish. But definitely keep working to improve it.

 

[AlexES16]

Hi Alex,

I agree that a socialist republic doesn't necessarily have to be oppressive. All modern countries are partly socialist, partly capitalist republics. Actually, all modern countries are pretty much oligarchies/plutocracies.

Good question. But not likely to happen. We are, after all, animals. Particularly greedy animals. Nothing wrong with that if you happen to have been endowed with the necessary prerequisites for becoming rich. If not, then too bad. You will be at the mercy of those who have been so endowed.

Well, ask yourself why it is that particularly ruthless and aggressive men tend to become leaders.

This is, I would suggest to you, 'the way it is supposed to be'. It's our nature.

These are just my current opinions. You might disagree with me. I might change my mind.

Your English is much better than my Spanish. But definitely keep working to improve it.

But at the end a more stable socialist society will help me to, even if i am endowed well, i will know that i can retire more early, have access to work, healthcare and education, and maybe a better environment and security. So socialism still benefits me, so a greedy person will have benefits.

An example of security is my country. We are the third more capitalist country in the region according to http://www.heritage.org/Index/Country/ElSalvador and we are one of the most violent societies in the world, maybe you have heard from mara MS and 18 streetwich are gangs that kill many people here. The last day in the news the bodies of 3 businessman where found, poverty is raising and the climate change will impact a lot so capitalism kinda failed here.

 

[AlexES16]

Could the planet sustain a population that consumes like USA and Europe but instead of being like 1,000,000,000 it will be 6(1,000,000,000)

 

[Proton Soup]

Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot. Communism always comes with a blood bath, and always fails. even the chinese cannot commit to communism, but have chosen to go with a sort of oppressive capitalism.

however, there are lessons here. i think that generally, "oppressive" (this can really depend on your values) or not, systems that work have a strong sense of order and rule of law. otherwise, you're going to get chaos and random violence, and this leads to a lack of economic development and the sort of luxury that is able to exist in westernized democracies.

 

[Al68]

But it is really what communism failed? It is really in human nature to be extremely selfish?

It's certainly human nature to put one's self and immediate family's needs first. It's human nature to be more productive if the result is individually and directly beneficial to one's self and loved ones, and unproductive if one's personal benefit from one's efforts are watered down by a factor of millions.

Communism fails primarily because of the lack of a significant relationship between individual productivity and individual income. Also, communism is the equivalent of a mega monopoly over every industry, with lawmaking power, which is just asking for inefficiency and corruption. Imagine a single corporation in the U.S. eliminating all competition in every industry, and taking over control of government. The only difference between this and communism is corporate profit, but if the corporation also agreed to forego profit, it would only be more corrupt and inefficient for the same reason communism is.

 

[AlexES16]

Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot. Communism always comes with a blood bath, and always fails. even the chinese cannot commit to communism, but have chosen to go with a sort of oppressive capitalism.

however, there are lessons here. i think that generally, "oppressive" (this can really depend on your values) or not, systems that work have a strong sense of order and rule of law. otherwise, you're going to get chaos and random violence, and this leads to a lack of economic development and the sort of luxury that is able to exist in westernized democracies.

Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot where no real commuist/socialist, they were facist, even if they proclaimed to be socialist, they don't allowed democracy. Cuba and the USSR are the same they imposed their pseudo socialism, but socialism needs democracy. Democracy is the garant of the state, you can have the capitalist propaganda about the state, that is always corrupt and inefficient but its becouse i far from the people, far from the workers and is under a cloud of instransparency. The state is "us" not of the professional politician, the state should be owned be the people and have full transparency. Stalin even made treaties with Hitler before operation Barbarrosa. We can say that most of the Socialism in the XX century is a false Socialism

 

[AlexES16]

It's certainly human nature to put one's self and immediate family's needs first. It's human nature to be more productive if the result is individually and directly beneficial to one's self and loved ones, and unproductive if one's personal benefit from one's efforts are watered down by a factor of millions.

Communism fails primarily because of the lack of a significant relationship between individual productivity and individual income. Also, communism is the equivalent of a mega monopoly over every industry, with lawmaking power, which is just asking for inefficiency and corruption. Imagine a single corporation in the U.S. eliminating all competition in every industry, and taking over control of government. The only difference between this and communism is corporate profit, but if the corporation also agreed to forego profit, it would only be more corrupt and inefficient for the same reason communism is.

Thats not communism, that's the USSR, Cuba, China etc.
In true socialism/communism the state is owned by the people and for the people like Lincoln said(he was not communist). In true Socialism there is democracy and in socialism you assure your families future and of the planet. And in the Western Powers most of the time they have become rich by making other countries be in missery.

 

[Proton Soup]

Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot where no real commuist/socialist, they were facist, even if they proclaimed to be socialist, they don't allowed democracy. Cuba and the USSR are the same they imposed their pseudo socialism, but socialism needs democracy. Democracy is the garant of the state, you can have the capitalist propaganda about the state, that is always corrupt and inefficient but its becouse i far from the people, far from the workers and is under a cloud of instransparency. The state is "us" not of the professional politician, the state should be owned be the people and have full transparency. Stalin even made treaties with Hitler before operation Barbarrosa. We can say that most of the Socialism in the XX century is a false Socialism

so what? here in the US, we do not have "real" capitalism, either. we have some people that dream of it (libertarians), but their utopia doesn't exist, can't exist, and never will. it's just a fantasy, like your ideal communism.

 

[AlexES16]

Cuba, USSR, China, Vietnam, Cambodian Pol Pot and most if not all of the pseudo Socialism of the XX century was corrupt, withouth democracy and opressed its people when it should empowered.

Socialism is:
-Democracy
-Enviromentalism
-End of sexual discrimination
-Transparency
-Education(What the people in the former USSR misses)
-Social Security(What the people in the former USSR misses)
-Feeling of Brotherhood(What the people in the former USSR misses)
-Scientific Progress(What the people in the former USSR misses)
-People (you and me and our families) before profit.Thats why i put the example of the USSR, they maybe had Social Security but lack democracy, they maybe had Education but lacked of liberty.

Maybe todays Europe is more socialist than USSR and even the USA in some cases, becouse they have democracy(representantive and in socialism is direct and with more participation but at the end democracy) which is a great instrument for the people.

 

[AlexES16]

-The pseudo communist block said they were socialist/communist becouse they wanted to justify their dictadorships and get more people into their hands with the apealing of socialism/communism

-Capitalist said that the pesudo communist block was socialist/communist becouse they wanted to bash the name of true socialist/communist using the pseudo communist block.

At the end they both destroyed socialism/communism without even existing. This bring me feelings of pain becouse now all people associate socialism/communism with murders like Stalin and Mao, with corruption, with opression and all the bad. But i think there is hope and with technolody information can go faster than ever, we can make states more transparent and really give a try to real socialism and always with the ideal of communism as our star.

 

[bp_psy]

Socialism is:
-Democracy
-Enviromentalism
-End of sexual discrimination
-Transparency
-Education(What the people in the former USSR misses)
-Social Security(What the people in the former USSR misses)
-Feeling of Brotherhood(What the people in the former USSR misses)
-Scientific Progress(What the people in the former USSR misses)

Do you have any solid proof that these can't or aren't achieved in a capitalist society.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Alex, you have quite a sense of humor! I almost thought you were serious,

 

[russ_watters]

The USSR with all its faults, with the murderor Stalin make a bad name to communism. But it is really what communism failed?

The failure of communism in the USSR had very little to do with Stalin's murders. It failed due to flaws in their chosen economic model that caused the economy of the country to limp along for decades and then collapse. Communism, as they practiced it, was inefficient and ineffective. There's a saying: "they pretend to pay us and we pretend to work".

It is really in human nature to be extremely selfish?

Yes. It is hard-coded into the DNA of all animals. The instinct is called "self-preservation". And the common belief that selfishness is bad is at best an oversimplification: unless you help yourself first, it isn't possible to help others. So the irony is that it is the richest (to oppoents of capitalism, the most selfish) who help others the most.

...but maybe a closer look about to the capitalist regions like USA-Canada and Europe can give us a different story, an story about how this capitalist founded its power in the consumption of Latin America, Africa and Asia for a long time and still do it, how they hire dictators and death squads to maintain their status quo.

Conspiracy theories notwithstanding, the US did make some bad choices about who to support and how during the cold war. But the idea that a country like the US could subsist by "consumption of..." 3rd world countries is rediculous. This will sound insulting, but frankly, those countries don't have enough for us to gain much by consuming them even if we wanted to!

You can also see how capitalism pollutes the planet, at the point that it puts our survival in stake.

The worlds worst polluters are not the capitalist countries, but the autocratic ones, with the former USSR and current China being probably the worst. The US comes nowhere close to them in terms of pollution with the exception of CO2 emissions, which only became regarded as a pollutant recently.

The irony is that being centrally controlled means it should be much easier for those countries to control pollution, but they choose not to...perhaps that's nationalistic selfishness...? Or perhaps it is because their economies struggle that environmental protection is too painful.

But most russian think that the time of USSR was better than today more market oriented system.

Russia's transition to capitalism/democracy was painful, but it is important to recognize that the collapse happened because of the communism so the rough time they had immediately after was due to the communism, not the capitalism. And the conditions today are much better than immediately after the collapse.

And I think maybe the biggest problem is your info is out of date. Have a look at the last 20 years of GDP growth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Russian_economy_since_fall_of_Soviet_Union.PNG
Russia went down or stagnated in the 1990s when the western world saw spectacular growth, but since then the economy has been growing rapidly (current global recession notwithstanding).

What will hapen if Communism/Socialism is mixed with democracy and personal freedom?

Certain principles already are - every western democracy/capitalist country contains socialist policies.

 

[russ_watters]

But at the end a more stable socialist society will help me to, even if i am endowed well, i will know that i can retire more early, have access to work, healthcare and education, and maybe a better environment and security. So socialism still benefits me, so a greedy person will have benefits.

These things cost money - why would you think that a struggling society would somehow become wealthy enough to provide such things just by having socialism?

Could the planet sustain a population that consumes like USA and Europe but instead of being like 1,000,000,000 it will be 6(1,000,000,000)

No. But I'm not sure that's a relevant question: as our resources become scarce, we find other ways to do the same things. Over the next 100 years, we'll likely see a shift away from oil and coal to nuclear power. The world could relatively easily support 6 billion (or 12!) on nuclear power and modern farming.

Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot where no real commuist/socialist, they were facist, even if they proclaimed to be socialist, they don't allowed democracy. Cuba and the USSR are the same they imposed their pseudo socialism, but socialism needs democracy.

As you correctly noted, people are selfish and as a result, a system that requires people to not be selfish can only be applied at the national level by force and even then can only function inefficiently. So I see your examples as evidence of the flaw in Marxism showing itself over and over and over again.

The pseudo communist block said they were socialist/communist becouse they wanted to justify their dictadorships and get more people into their hands with the apealing of socialism/communism...

That's not really true. Evidence suggests that guys like Lenin and Stalin were true believers in Marxism and that they attempted to implement it in the most faithful way possible. Murdering millions was not something Stalin did because he felt like murdering millions: he did it because the economics of Marxism required it.

Collectivization in the Soviet Union was a policy pursued under Stalin between 1928 and 1940. The goal of this policy was to consolidate individual land and labour into collective farms (Russian: колхо́з, kolkhoz, plural kolkhozy). The Soviet leadership was confident that the replacement of individual peasant farms by kolkhozy would immediately increase the food supply for urban populations, the supply of raw materials for processing industry, and agricultural exports. Collectivization was thus regarded as the solution to the crisis of agricultural distribution (mainly in grain deliveries) that had developed since 1927. This problem became more acute as the Soviet Union pressed ahead with its ambitious industrialization program.[1]

Already in the early 1940s over 90% of agricultural land was "collectivized" as rural households entered collective farms with their land, livestock, and other assets. The sweeping collectivization often involved tremendous human and social costs while the issue of economic advantages of collective farms remained largely undecided.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivization_in_the_Soviet_Union

Capitalist said that the pesudo communist block was socialist/communist becouse they wanted to bash the name of true socialist/communist using the pseudo communist block.

That's not true either: these people were self-labeled and stated explicitly that they were followers of Marxism.

 

[SixNein]

Murdering millions was not something Stalin did because he felt like murdering millions: he did it because the economics of Marxism required it.

And which theory of Karl Marx states: "Must kill millions"?

One problem of having a discussion about Socialism or any form of government is nationalism.

 

[AlexES16]

Alex, you have quite a sense of humor! I almost thought you were serious,

Wow! O.O xD. Crazy stuff dude

 

[AlexES16]

These things cost money - why would you think that a struggling society would somehow become wealthy enough to provide such things just by having socialism?
No. But I'm not sure that's a relevant question: as our resources become scarce, we find other ways to do the same things. Over the next 100 years, we'll likely see a shift away from oil and coal to nuclear power. The world could relatively easily support 6 billion (or 12!) on nuclear power and modern farming. As you correctly noted, people are selfish and as a result, a system that requires people to not be selfish can only be applied at the national level by force and even then can only function inefficiently. So I see your examples as evidence of the flaw in Marxism showing itself over and over and over again. That's not really true. Evidence suggests that guys like Lenin and Stalin were true believers in Marxism and that they attempted to implement it in the most faithful way possible. Murdering millions was not something Stalin did because he felt like murdering millions: he did it because the economics of Marxism required it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivization_in_the_Soviet_Union That's not true either: these people were self-labeled and stated explicitly that they were followers of Marxism.

Solid points men. Well my really worry of capitalism are in the helthcare and enviroment.

What hapens when hospitals are left unregulated, or the health care insurances like USA in the documental Sicko?

I want my live, don't wana die becouse a a guy tought that my dead was a profit for him.

Also what about the Enviroment, i was reading a capitalit magazine and this guys said that we should keep using coal and oil.

 

[AlexES16]

Well here is my point.

Capitalism said there most be no labels in food.

There most be no FDA

There most be no enviromental laws.Wow i kinda feel afraid in that world, is like I am gona be eating mercury and lead.

 

[russ_watters]

And which theory of Karl Marx states: "Must kill millions?"

You misunderstood: STALIN believed that to faithfully follow Marx he must do forced collectivization. Tough to say he's wrong about that though: Marx may not have calculated the cost of his revolution (I would hope he realized a "revolution" must kill people) but that doesn't mean it wasn't a predictable biproduct in this case. It just says to me that Marx didn't think through the implementation of his vision.

 

[Evo]

Alex, you've made a lot of cliams that you need to provide valid, mainstream sources for.

PM me when you have these sources for all of your claims ready so that they can be reviewed. At this point, the thread needs to be stopped until we see the sources. Thanks.