Greatest debate in modern history? Socialism(not Stalinism) vs Capitalism

[AlexES16]

How do you determine what is an absolute minimum? What if society cannot afford to produce the absolute minimum for all members of society, even using all its resources? Does the absolute minimum change over time?



I agree, although this statement makes it seem simpler than it is. Increasing the well-being of some by $X billion (in aggregate) may require the rest of society to forgo $10X billion.



That actually tells me a lot about your preferences, and makes me think that we probably have similar value systems in this regard.

Production can give the minum to everyone, and those who make more contribution to society should have more

 

[AlexES16]

I was reading an article in the newspaper of my country. It says that if you were good in the universitie, and have doctoral degree , especialization and labor experience, then you are bad, becouse the capitalist of the company will no want to contract you and they are going to contract juniors or less experienced people. Whats the messeage of the system not study hard and be excellent?? wow! i tought capitalism was about giving more to the best.

 

[AlexES16]

Hey some videos to have fun xD :




Venezuela Socialism is taking a lot of people out of poverty. Venezuela HDI has improved a lot.

USA tried to make a coup against Chavez.

USA aided the coup in Honduras.

USA still makes a blockade against Cuba.

I think USA have a great quote of Imperialism, fine if you want to be capitalist but let the other countrys be what they want.

Well only free the poor North Koreans xD

 

[AlexES16]

Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim jon iL even the entire USSR and China are not good examples of socialism. The future is Libertarian Socialism. The vital resources should not be used for profit, with rest play monopoly if you want.

 

[vici10]

AlexES16, great videos, especially second one about statistics. It is correct regarding feeling of people in Russia. And if you take smaller republics of USSR such as Georgia or Ukraine the situation is even worse.

Below are the graphs of what kind of disaster capitalism became for people of former Soviet Union.

[PLAIN]http://www.sublimeoblivion.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/industrialized-transition2-450x314.png

[PLAIN]http://www.sublimeoblivion.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/developing-transition-450x360.png

EDT: The graphs are from http://www.sublimeoblivion.com/2010/03/10/transition-reckoning/

 

[CRGreathouse]

Venezuela Socialism is taking a lot of people out of poverty. Venezuela HDI has improved a lot.

USA tried to make a coup against Chavez.

USA aided the coup in Honduras.

USA still makes a blockade against Cuba.

Venezuela is far deeper in poverty than they would have been under capitalism. They support their anti-poverty programs largely through their oil wealth; most countries don't have that option.

To the best of my knowledge, the US has not undertaken or sponsored a coup against Venezuela or Chavez. They even warned him of an attempt that they learned about.

They did/do embargo ("quarantine") Cuba and were responsible for a coup in Honduras, that much is true.

 

[CRGreathouse]

And if you take smaller republics of USSR such as Georgia or Ukraine the situation is even worse.

Yes. Although the cause is not clear. Possible causes include:
1. The USSR's GDP was overestimated, even after historical revision.
2. The USSR destroyed the local environment, increasing the Soviet GDP but decreasing that of its republics afterward (when the resources were depleted).
3. The transition to capitalism was done poorly.
4. The leadership of the member states was poor.
5. There was unrest in light of the large transition.
6. The region fared poorly for unrelated reasons, and the member states bore the brunt of that (either directly or because other nations were unable to trade with them).
7. Capitalism is ill-suited to the former SSRs for cultural/etc. reasons.

I think that #3 is the primary reason, frankly. What do you think?

 

[mheslep]

AlexES16, great videos, especially second one about statistics. It is correct regarding feeling of people in Russia. And if you take smaller republics of USSR such as Georgia or Ukraine the situation is even worse.

Below are the graphs of what kind of disaster capitalism became for people of former Soviet Union.

How do you conclude that? Per capital income is better now than before the Wall came down for most. More importantly, the people in those former Soviet countries are mostly free.

 

[vici10]

CRGreathouse,

I will tell you my personal opinion as someone who lived long enough in Soviet Union and in West.

#1 I do not know if USSR GDP was overestimated, but the author of the article says:

I used Angus Maddison’s historical statistics, CIA figures for 2009 growth except where available the results from national statistical services (Belarus & Russia), and the IMF projections for 2010 (adjusted upwards for non-Baltic nations with sharp recent falls in GDP to account for their stronger-than-expected recoveries) to create GDP (PPP) per capita indices for post-Soviet nations and Poland (generally representative of Visegrad) where the output levels of 1989 – the year of peak Soviet GDP – are set to 100.

Therefore, I assume this is what one can get.

#2 I do not think that destruction of environment was the cause for bad performance of post-Soviet republics. No, there was environmental damage as in many industrialized countries, but this is not the reason. One of the reasons is civil wars and ethnic cleansing that happened in places that people lived peacefully before. People intermarried with each other, no one was bothered about ethnicity much and suddenly people started to kill each other. I suspect foreign influence, propaganda and help to different separatist groups. Especially if one think of all "foreign aid" and foreign experts that came to Armenia during the earthquake in 1988 and first ethnic problems started between Armenia and Azerbajan exactly in that time.
In Georgia, it was fight between different groups, all Georgian for power. Gamsahurdia was supported by West, he was once part of Helsinki group. He proclaimed that only ethnic Georgians can live in Georgia. And shame to intermarriages.He wanted to return Georgia to 12th century.
The other reason for destruction is end of central planning. For some it will sounds strange, but it is what really happened, de-industrialization.

#3 Surely, transition to capitalism was done poorely. But I do not think it could be otherwise in the former Soviet Union. First we should understand the reasons for transition. The article says and I believe it is correct:

First, it cannot be stressed enough that the USSR did not collapse economically because of its inherent internal contradictions. It collapsed because Gorbachev aborted central planning, or more accurately ditched the coercive mechanisms that made central planning work (though granted the observable evidence of worker unrest and economic stagnation may have tipped his hand).[\QUOTE]

It was not done from below by the people's demand but from above. Many party leaders had privileges, but they cannot even slightly to be compared to the privileges of very rich in West. So party elite decided to convert their power into money. And best thing for them to do it is to bring capitalism and steal(privatize) people's property.

People did not defend socialism mainly because they knew nothing about capitalism, except western propaganda which was much more superior than soviet one. People knew that government lies to them often, but they did not know that western propaganda can lie too. Soviests compared themselves to US and wanted to have the same standard of living forgetting that there are many other capitalist countries that are not doing so well, such as Latin American countries for example. And that before revolution Russia was backward third world country with 90% of illiterate peasants. So now Russia is going to the pre-revolution backwardness again.

#4 About leadership I mentioned above. Gorbachev was a fool, but the rest of elite just wanted to grub people's money what they successfully done during privatization.

#5 About unrest I have mentioned above.

#6 No, it is not true. During Soviet times Georgia, Ukraine as well as Baltic republics were the richest republics. They were the best places to live.

#7 As maybe you have noticed before I do not believe in culture stuff. It does not explain anything and anything can be marked as culture.

 

[mheslep]

Yes. Although the cause is not clear. Possible causes include:
[...]
3. The transition to capitalism was done poorly.
[...]
I think that #3 is the primary reason, frankly. What do you think?

Yep, that's what M. Friedman said in admitting his own overconfidence:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/172092

"In the immediate aftermath of the fall of the Soviet Union, I kept being asked what the Russians should do," Friedman told me in 2002. "I said, 'Privatize, privatize, privatize. I was wrong. Joe [Stiglitz, Nobel Laureate] was right. What we want is privatization, and the rule of law."

The Poles and others in E. Europe got it mostly right; they spent much time nailing down a constitution and a court system, while my read is the Russians started selling things off immediately.

 

[mheslep]

USA tried to make a coup against Chavez.

USA aided the coup in Honduras.

USA still makes a blockade against Cuba.

What makes you believe any of this is so? Do you live in Venezuela or Honduras?

 

[mheslep]

Venezuelan GDP. Chavez took over in 1999 and the GDP went into the toilet for some years, recovered coincident with oil price boom in 2007-8

http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?v=65&c=ve&l=en

Inflation Rate (4th highest in the world):

Population below poverty line. Shows remarkable improvement, but then the poverty line is set by V.
Edit:Deleted. Upon looking more, there's too many sources out there saying the opposite, so for now I think the self-reported poverty figures are unreliable.

Some sources on V. poverty:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2006/01/04/hugo_boss?page=0,2"
Corrales is an associate professor of government at Amherst College.

He also launched one of the most dramatic increases in state spending in the developing world, from 19 percent of gross domestic product in 1999 to more than 30 percent in 2004. And yet, Chávez has failed to improve any meaningful measure of poverty, education, or equity. More damning for the Chávez-as-Robin Hood theory, the poor do not support him en masse.
[...]
Most expropriated lands will likely end up in the hands of party activists and the military, not the very poor. Owning a small plot of land is a common retirement dream among many Venezuelan sergeants, which is one reason that the military is hypnotized by Chávez's land grab.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123621659357535821.html"

Mr. Chávez's move comes amid a growing battle between his populist government and private food companies, who are straining under strict price controls aimed at slowing down high inflation set off by Mr. Chávez's non-stop spending. The controls have led to shortages of staples like milk and rice. Mr. Chávez blames the companies; the companies say the prices are set too low to make a profit.

Earlier this week, Mr. Chávez ordered army units to take over other rice mills belonging to Venezuelan companies whom the president accuses of causing shortages of rice. He also imposed new regulations forcing producers to devote at least 70% of their production to price-regulated products, including certain types of sugar, milk and vegetable oil.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Gorbachev was a fool, but the rest of elite just wanted to grub people's money what they successfully done during privatization.

Interesting; I've always thought rather well of him. I managed to go to one of Mikhail's speeches, and he certainly didn't come off that way. But I've never lived under his rule; I imagine that gives a different perspective.

 

[vici10]

Yes, many in former Soviet Union considered him as a traitor. Considering what happened after and how many people have died or became refuges because of his polices not only in Soviet Union but also world wide one cannot blame them.
But I do not think he was a traitor. He was very naive and idealistic, he thought that if he will come with a good will to West (US), West will do the same. It was very irresponsible of him.

Below there is population growth of Russia. Gorbachev came to power in 1985. After that one can see a sharp decline in births and increase in death rates. Death rates increased significantly with disintegration of Soviet Union. Welcome to new free Russia!

Source is from wikipedia

 

[vici10]

According to Elizabeth Brainerd, and David M. Cutler, "Autopsy On An Empire: Understanding Mortality in Russia and the Former Soviet Union." Journal Of Economic Perspectives 2005 19(1): 107-130.

The 1990s were a decade of turmoil for the formerly socialist countries. Besides the
political, economic and social upheavals endured by these populations, many of these countries
also experienced a demographic disaster in the form of sharply rising death rates. In Russia,
male life expectancy at birth fell from 64.2 years in 1989 to 57.6 years in 1994, a decline of 6.6
years in just half a decade. Female life expectancy at birth fell by 3.3 years over the same time
period. To put this in perspective, it took the past 30 years for the United States to increase life
expectancy by this much. Russia’s life expectancy today ranks 122nd in the world, at the same
level as North Korea and Guyana.
The mortality crisis is not limited to Russia. Across the western countries of the former
Soviet Union – the countries which we term ‘the mortality belt’ and which range from Estonia in
the north to Ukraine in the south – there have been significant declines in male life expectancy at
birth, ranging from 3.3 years (Belarus) to nearly 5 years in Estonia and Latvia (see Figure 1).
Life expectancy for women fell substantially as well.

In this statistics we see an advantage of capitalism over socialism!

 

[AlexES16]

Yes, many in former Soviet Union considered him as a traitor. Considering what happened after and how many people have died or became refuges because of his polices not only in Soviet Union but also world wide one cannot blame them.
But I do not think he was a traitor. He was very naive and idealistic, he thought that if he will come with a good will to West (US), West will do the same. It was very irresponsible of him.

Below there is population growth of Russia. Gorbachev came to power in 1985. After that one can see a sharp decline in births and increase in death rates. Death rates increased significantly with disintegration of Soviet Union. Welcome to new free Russia!

Source is from wikipedia

Hey i found this documental



Its very interesting, sad how Russia is.

maybe the CPRF will do?

 

[AlexES16]

I found this documental on how Russia is withouth communism.
Actaully very sad.

 

[AlexES16]

Well history says Socialism doesn't work, and looks like just an ideal nothing practical.

So maybe the way is Social Market Economy(i think the europeans have this) with strong regulation on environment protection?

 

[CRGreathouse]

strong regulation on environment protection?

Even capitalist countries need regulations on the environment. More generally, externalities need to be internalized for capitalism to function properly, and government intervention is the usual way.

 

[AlexES16]

The only thing and still can get in my mind, is; ¿how capitalism would work in time of a global crisis(a massive catastrophere like a metiorit)?

 

[D H]

First off, basing the type of economic system we should have in place based on ability to handle a very low probability event such as a large meteorite impact (do learn to spell) is, to be blunt, stupid. There is a saying in law which applies here: "Hard cases make bad law".

Secondly, would any economic system handle such a crisis? Just because capitalism *might* flounder does not invalidate it. Would socialism fare better, or would it too flounder, and flounder worse than would capitalism?

Thirdly, capitalism is not a form of governance. It is an economic system. Capitalism is employed, to varying degrees, in very distinct styles of governance.

 

[AlexES16]

First off, basing the type of economic system we should have in place based on ability to handle a very low probability event such as a large meteorite impact (do learn to spell) is, to be blunt, stupid. There is a saying in law which applies here: "Hard cases make bad law".

Secondly, would any economic system handle such a crisis? Just because capitalism *might* flounder does not invalidate it. Would socialism fare better, or would it too flounder, and flounder worse than would capitalism?

Thirdly, capitalism is not a form of governance. It is an economic system. Capitalism is employed, to varying degrees, in very distinct styles of governance.

I don't think it was necessary to say "stupid" and yeah i have isues with the spelling, English is not my born lenguage

 

[AlexES16]

Some tips on how to defend the free market could be very useful.
And how to bash socialism to

There is going to be a debate in my school Capitalism vs Socialism.

Ill suport the free market and europe capitalism against the comunists.

 

[mheslep]

Some tips on how to defend the free market could be very useful.
And how to bash socialism to

There is going to be a debate in my school Capitalism vs Socialism.

Ill suport the free market and europe capitalism against the comunists.

Suggest spending some time up front in your debate defining what the two terms mean when you use them. Otherwise much time will be wasted in discussions that amount to little more than personal notions of good stuff vs bad stuff, or country X vs country Y. Note that while Adam Smith did the intellectual ground work for what we now call Capitalism, Karl Marx was the first to use the term mainly for bashing it.

 

[mheslep]

I found this documental on how Russia is withouth communism.
Actaully very sad.

There have been some lessons learned by first rank economists on the Russian story. See post 220 for the importance of a working legal system in place before trying free markets.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2657093&postcount=220

 

[AlexES16]

Suggest spending some time up front in your debate defining what the two terms mean when you use them. Otherwise much time will be wasted in discussions that amount to little more than personal notions of good stuff vs bad stuff, or country X vs country Y. Note that while Adam Smith did the intellectual ground work for what we now call Capitalism, Karl Marx was the first to use the term mainly for bashing it.

Thank you for the tip bro.

 

[AlexES16]

There have been some lessons learned by first rank economists on the Russian story. See post 220 for the importance of a working legal system in place before trying free markets.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2657093&postcount=220

Ok. In my country El Salvador we have a problem with the legal system and with criminal gangs. And a lot of corruption to.

Maybe i can use to explain how the free market is not in reality so free in my country becouse of the legal system and corruption.

 

[AlexES16]

Should healthcare, medicine and education be private? Are these really keys of capitalism or are not such necesary? Should a poor country make private universal healthcare? and education? What about water? Some lights about these.

 

[mheslep]

Should healthcare, medicine and education be private? Are these really keys of capitalism or are not such necesary? Should a poor country make private universal healthcare? and education? What about water? Some lights about these.

Try these Friedman (Economics Nobel laureate) clips back when he was at the top of his game.
Healthcare:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F092cdUYec0&feature=related"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdcaLReCG3Y&NR=1"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6t-R3pWrRw&feature=related"
Socialised Medicine (economics and examples)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHFIbfUi5rw&feature=related"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0pl_FXt0eM&feature=related"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rls8H6MktrA&feature=related"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xeebU8VhmY&feature=related"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKxC...p=5B6A339E48C34585&playnext_from=PL&index=13"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_gU50mfehI&feature=related"

 

[AlexES16]

Try these Friedman (Economics Nobel laureate) clips back when he was at the top of his game.
Healthcare:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F092cdUYec0&feature=related"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdcaLReCG3Y&NR=1"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6t-R3pWrRw&feature=related"
Socialised Medicine (economics and examples)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHFIbfUi5rw&feature=related"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0pl_FXt0eM&feature=related"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rls8H6MktrA&feature=related"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xeebU8VhmY&feature=related"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKxC...p=5B6A339E48C34585&playnext_from=PL&index=13"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_gU50mfehI&feature=related"

Thanks a lot men

 

[Vanadium 50]

vici10, what are we supposed to take away from that plot? I see that birth rates took a dive before the collapse of the Soviet Union. I see death rate rising since 1960 - indeed, from 1960 to 1989 it looks like it's gone up by about 50% and from 1989 to today, maybe 20 or 30%.

Finally, birth rates and death rates are anticorrelated. Birth rates go down, and the average population age goes up. Average population age goes up, and so does the death rate.

 

[AlexES16]

Free Market Enviromentalism? Role of Goverment in Capitalism?

Did you know that Chile is the most free market oriented country in Latin America and is the most succesfull and with the best living standars and quality of life?

 

[Sea Cow]

Free Market Enviromentalism? Role of Goverment in Capitalism?

Did you know that Chile is the most free market oriented country in Latin America and is the most succesfull and with the best living standars and quality of life?

Did you know that this so-called 'free market' was imposed by a dictator who overthrew a democracy and murdered thousands of his political opponents in a reign of terror?

I presume you also know that said dictator's coup was supported by the US.

 

[vici10]

Vanadium50,

what I try to say is that transition to capitalism was a disaster for many Russians, with sharp increase of deaths and reduction of life expectancy during 1991-1996.
It is true that death rates were rising from 1964, but it cannot compare to what happen in 1991-1996. Decline in life expectancy of 6.6 years for male just in 5 Years,
in peace time! And the most striking thing that they were not old or very young but middle aged males.Death rate for Russian men aged 35– 44 rose by 74 percent in 1989-1994!
Men just drunk themselves to death in the face of capitalism that brings "freedom".
For more comprehensive study about population growth and life expectancy in Soviet Union vs new Russia you can have a look at
"Autopsy On An Empire: Understanding Mortality in Russia and the Former Soviet Union" Journal of Economic Perspectives—Volume 19, Number 1—Winter 2005—Pages 107–130
www.williams.edu/Economics/brainerd/papers/jep05.pdf
It is interesting that people in West have difficult time imagining any system different from their own.
They also have difficult time to understand that economic enslavement (such as high debt, "market" that forces one to choose a profession, to choose a job etc) can be perceived
by many people as loose of freedom, rather than occurring freedom. In this sense "totalitarism" of Soviet Union was much more free. I assume people just could not live with the new for them psychology of capitalism.

 

[AlexES16]

Free Market in Russia? not really. Russia is in the rank 143 of economic freedom.