How Does a Communist Economy Work?

[m k]

Sorry about the inconvenience.

IMO, life of an owner is sort of irrelevant.
Owning is not an operative task and heritage will replace it automatically anyway.

Life of a consumer is much more relevant.

 

[AgentCachat]

Voluntary communist societies have formed from time to time, like New Harmony, Indiana. They always fail due to human nature. You can rail against human nature all you want, but reality is what it is.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Voluntary communist societies have formed from time to time, like New Harmony, Indiana. They always fail due to human nature. You can rail against human nature all you want, but reality is what it is.

I think that's the essential point. Lenin spoke of the "communist man." (I can't say if he meant women too). The problem was the "communist man" wasn't quite human. I find it interesting the the pre agricultural Native Americans formed effective collectives that successfully lived off the land, sharing what they had. They had no real concept of private property, rigid hierarchy or strict boundaries of territory. It was a way of life that did not depend on constant growth and which survived for possibly tens of thousands of years if you include their asian origins.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I find it interesting the the pre agricultural Native Americans formed effective collectives that successfully lived off the land, sharing what they had. They had no real concept of private property, rigid hierarchy or strict boundaries of territory. It was a way of life that did not depend on constant growth and which survived for possibly tens of thousands of years if you include their asian origins.

You're saying it's interesting because it seems counter-intuitive, or because it demonstrates something like, "communism is a natural default human state?" I really don't get why you mention it, your implication.

 

[Salvador]

Probably the reason why those ancient tribes could have had a form of communism without them even realizing it is because the very nature and level of their technology back in the day required this collective living together as the only real means of surviving , as man progressed and modernized he has become more of an egoist than before because today we all have these things like phones and machines and cars and the feeling that we might not survive being alone has long passed.

Humans have actually moved away from being very social to now being less social even with all the "social media" that we have around.

@zoobyshoe I think you need to take stuff that starts or ends with the word communism with less of a fear and hatred.It's not the 1950's McCarthyism anymore.
No offense just saying.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

You're saying it's interesting because it seems counter-intuitive, or because it demonstrates something like, "communism is a natural default human state?" I really don't get why you mention it, your implication.

It was a natural human state. However, once we invented agriculture (which already existed in parts of pre Columbian America) there was no turning back. Populations increased, urban societies developed, etc. We're not going back there. Lenin's scheme was a response to industrialization, but apparently wasn't even compatable with pre industrial societies since the various collective experiments didn't last.

 

[Mark44]

only in soviet communism all races were sen equal

But some races were "more equal than others" - to quote George Orwell, in "Animal House."

My problem with communism and other forms of collectivism is the overemphasis on "equality" at the complete expense of liberty and freedom. Equality is not much of a virtue if how people are equal is in their misery.

Probably the first paradox of communism that somehow a bunch of rich bearded men decided to live a bohemian lifestyle and invent a system that could in theory benefit only the poor and less lucky.

But in practice, the ones who benefit the most are the ones who are doing the redistribution.

Also another interesting fact , judging by the overall negative attitude towards Communism and the USSR from many of the well known posters here in this thread I can almost certainly say you are either 40 years of age or older , there is no way you are under 30, no way :D:D

The reason for that is ignorance.

@zoobyshoe I think you need to take stuff that starts or ends with the word communism with less of a fear and hatred.It's not the 1950's McCarthyism anymore.

There's a lot that McCarthy got right, though.

The apologists for communism in any of its ilks alway say that the reason it didn't work in XYZ was that the people there didn't do it right.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I find it interesting the the pre agricultural Native Americans formed effective collectives that successfully lived off the land, sharing what they had. They had no real concept of private property, rigid hierarchy or strict boundaries of territory.

What they had was certainly a natural human state given their circumstances. Your description of their society isn't complete, though, or completely accurate. They certainly had private property: if you tried to grab another man's horse and ride it, or another man's bow and quiver, you'd be in for a harsh beating. At the same time they did, in most cases, strictly share food and a lot of their resources, there were definite and constant maneuvers to gain status and influence by owning the most or best of one thing or another, or by being the best at something. The guy who killed the most game soared in status. A guy with 3 wives had more status than a guy with only 1, and the guy with the fastest horse had more status than the guy with the second fastest. Native Americans were extremely status conscious people. The fact everyone in the group was automatically granted food, clothing, and shelter wasn't an implication they were all equal. That's what the feathers in the war bonnet are all about: each individual feather is a status symbol granted for a specific meritorious deed in battle.

On top of that, they were essentially un-communist in that every part of their lives was imbued with mysticism and superstition. Within every band there were all kinds of secret religious societies that kept their practices hidden from the other societies. For them, there was a vast spirit world that was more real and important than the physical world, and which had to be constantly tended to.

It was a natural human state. However, once we invented agriculture (which already existed in parts of pre Columbian America) there was no turning back. Populations increased, urban societies developed, etc. We're not going back there. Lenin's scheme was a response to industrialization, but apparently wasn't even compatable with pre industrial societies since the various collective experiments didn't last.

Right. Native Americans were glued together by threat of starvation or death by enemy in a pre-industrial, pre-agricultural world that can't be regained.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

. Your description of their society isn't complete, though, or completely accurate. They certainly had private property: if you tried to grab another man's horse and ride it, or another man's bow and quiver, you'd be in for a harsh beating. At the same time they did, in most cases, strictly share food and a lot of their resources, there were definite and constant maneuvers to gain status and influence by owning the most or best of one thing or another, or by being the best at something. The guy who killed the most game soared in status. A guy with 3 wives had more status than a guy with only 1, and the guy with the fastest horse had more status than the guy with the second fastest. Native Americans were extremely status conscious people. The fact everyone in the group was automatically granted food, clothing, and shelter wasn't an implication they were all equal. That's what the feathers in the war bonnet are all about: each individual feather is a status symbol granted for a specific meritorious deed in battle.

On top of that, they were essentially un-communist in that every part of their lives was imbued with mysticism and superstition. Within every band there were all kinds of secret religious societies that kept their practices hidden from the other societies. For them, there was a vast spirit world that was more real and important than the physical world, and which had to be constantly tended to.

You must know more about pre Columbian pre agricultural Native American societies than I do. However, I do know there's no evidence they had horses, which were later imported from Europe. Some of what else you describe seems to be the somewhat stereotypical view of 19th century native people.

In fact, I said the pre Columbian society was collectivist. Are you equating "collectivist" with "communist"? The fact that Leninism was atheistic does not imply that all collectivist societies lacked religion. Some were founded on religious principles.

I also think I made it clear in two posts that I believed that Leninism was a flawed concept.

 

[Mark44]

You must know more about pre Columbian pre agricultural Native American societies than I do. However, I do know there's no evidence they had horses, which were later imported from Europe.

I'm pretty sure that's correct - no horses. The Incas had llamas, but they didn't use them for human transport.

Some of what else you describe seems to be the somewhat stereotypical view of 19th century native people.

In fact, I said the pre Columbian society was collectivist. Are you equating "collectivist" with "communist"? The fact that Leninism was atheistic does not imply that all collectivist societies lacked religion. Some were founded on religious principles.

Or most were...

I just finished reading "Custer and Crazy Horse" by Stephen Ambrose. It gives an excellent view of the cultures in the mid-19th century of both men of the title. In ways they were similar, and in ways they were very different. I really appreciated learning about how the nomadic Sioux lived (especially Crazy Horse's band, the Oglallas), and how expert they were as horsemen, able to ride at full gallop, holding and firing a bow with one hand, with a fistful of arrows in the other.

 

[AgentCachat]

Primitive societies such as in isolated Amazon tribes do not need growth because the population does not grow due to limited resource availability. They are constantly on the cusp of extinction.
How many times have we read that X was not a true communist [society,nation,community] due to [insert any reason]. This is a variation of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

 

[Vanadium 50]

This is a variation of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

Aye.

The way I look at it, all attempts have ended badly. We can argue that this is because they weren't true communists (although the groups that tried the hardest, like the Khmer Rouge, had the worst outcomes) but at some point you would think we would draw the conclusion that "attempts end badly". How many times do you have to burn your hand on a stove before you learn not to do that?

 

[EnumaElish]

IMO Marxian systems aren't in and of themselves insane or unsustainable. Posts about human nature etc. implicitly assume a prisoner's dilemma equilibrium. The dominant strategy is to compete. It may be that after another million years of social experimenting, humans (which may well mean the remaining few) might decide to structure the game differently.

Russia has always been Russia. No magna carta there. For a stretch of time like centuries, no one wanted to be the czar because they were being assasinated like during the after-coronation cocktail reception. That is, almost immediately. So whoever became the czar had to move fast and decisively, almost blindly, to eliminate any and all potential enemies, and to spread and grow fear. Obviously a czar had every incentive to err toward "false positives." At least in that respect Stalin was merely another czar.

The basic economic reality is scarcity of available resources. Even if the amount of resources were infinite (e. g. we could tap into parallel universes once we deplete our own), access would take time. In that sense time is the ultimate scarce resource. With scarcity comes the need for rationing. Market economies ration by setting prices. Non-market economies ration by setting a price in terms of time, that is time and energy to stand in line. In market economies there is then a need to defend money and the markets. In non-market economies there is a need to defend the order - everyone has to respect the order, and stay in line.

 

[Vanadium 50]

OK, so we can't use communism in Russia. Or the Ukraine (Holodomor) Or China (the Cultural Revolution). Or Cambodia (the Killing Fields). Or North Korea, Ethiopia, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Mozambique, Romania, etc. - call it 30 countries and a bunch of non-state actors like the Sendero Luminosa and the Brigate Rosse. Where exactly can we use it?

I know, next time it's going to lead to a workers' paradise.

 

[zoobyshoe]

You must know more about pre Columbian pre agricultural Native American societies than I do. However, I do know there's no evidence they had horses, which were later imported from Europe.

Not really the point, which was that individual Native Americans had their own private property. The concept of private property didn't emerge from the introduction of the horse, it was already there when horses showed up. I could have said "knife," "club," "moccasins." Whatever. They had jealously guarded personal property.

Some of what else you describe seems to be the somewhat stereotypical view of 19th century native people.

If you're interested you ought to get George Catlin's two volume book, Letters and Notes on the Manners, Customs, and Conditions of North American Indians. Maybe you're objecting to my having called them superstitious, I'm not sure, but Catlin got to the tribes in the west before their ways had been altered forever by white contact. In the absence of contradictory evidence I am assuming most of their "manners, customs, and conditions," were still essentially pre-Columbian.

In fact, I said the pre Columbian society was collectivist. Are you equating "collectivist" with "communist"?

The question in my mind is whether you are equating them or not. Actually, it's whether or not you are giving communism a conciliatory pat on the back for having some kind of reasonable idea at it's core, or something along those lines. You said, "collectivist," yes, but the thread is about the Communist economy, so it's not unwarranted for my mind to go there when you say "collectivist."

I also think I made it clear in two posts that I believed that Leninism was a flawed concept.

Right. I got that you don't think it's workable, nor is some kind of return to ancient Native American society. I agree with you on both counts.

 

[zoobyshoe]

OK, so we can't use communism in Russia. Or the Ukraine (Holodomor) Or China (the Cultural Revolution). Or Cambodia (the Killing Fields). Or North Korea, Ethiopia, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Mozambique, Romania, etc. - call it 30 countries and a bunch of non-state actors like the Sendero Luminosa and the Brigate Rosse. Where exactly can we use it?

I know, next time it's going to lead to a workers' paradise.

When you say, "Revolution!," it's flypaper for wolves. All the wonderful philosophical jargon Marx wrote out for them is the best kind of misdirection they could hope for.

 

[AgentCachat]

OK, so we can't use communism in Russia. Or the Ukraine (Holodomor) Or China (the Cultural Revolution). Or Cambodia (the Killing Fields). Or North Korea, Ethiopia, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Mozambique, Romania, etc. - call it 30 countries and a bunch of non-state actors like the Sendero Luminosa and the Brigate Rosse. Where exactly can we use it?

I know, next time it's going to lead to a workers' paradise.

As in Venezuela, where there is a national shortage of toilet paper and food. It has the highest murder rate in the world, and even a shortage of gasoline in a country sitting atop huge oil reserves. If Venezuela was a real democracy, the former bus driver who runs the country would have been impeached, recalled, or somehow removed from office. Meanwhile in North Korea some people eat grass soup. But hey, they got real nice nuclear weapons.

 

[mheslep]

... Meanwhile in North Korea some people eat grass soup. But hey, they got real nice nuclear weapons.

They got crap nuclear weapons. They occassionally fizzle and have small yields when they do fire. Everything is crap under socialism, from the Cancer Ward to the nukes. People are a mix of the sordid and the noble; socialism reaches into the mix, grabs the sordid and makes it standard for all.

 

[Salvador]

Mheslep and others , why does every intelligent discussion involving westerners ends with "oh I think this is crap simply because I know noting and have never been to the country I'm so speaking of"

I like your conservative stance on many issues but I have to gladly disagree for simply the benefit of other readers , You can't possibly mix in North Korea and say that the socialism there is the same as was in the USSR.Just because the name is the same doesn't mean the background is.
As one poster already pointed out rather smartly , first of all Communism never happened in real life , second of all socialism has been experimented in various places around the world and each had a different turnout , because it's not like Russia for example after 1917 was now absolutely socialist , you cannot erase your mentality and history just like that , Stalin was as he was not entirely because of socialism or Lenin or Marx, Russia has a long history of bloody rulers and harsh fights , socialism and the USSR simply gave all this inner hate and authority a much bigger platform armed with nuclear weapons and one of the worlds best armies.

Each socialist state or as one of them should be called more of an empire , achieved different levels of advancement. In the Ussr for example life wasn't that bad , we too had discos and restaurants , it wasn't like we were eating grass.
After all mheslep if the nukes the USSR had were so bad why the US was so worried about them on so many occasions?... That's because they were not bad they were actually top notch , and many things military and scientific were a high standard achieved by the very people whom many of you consider grass soup eating fools.

And if Russia has mud roads and no mans lands in it's midst , that's not because of communism as some less educated people think, it's because of Russia and it's huge land territory.As for private property , I think it's one of those things like the door knob , it arises naturally because of the way our thinking and nature works , for example we put the doorknob were it is because that's the height at which a typical adult's hand is not lower or higher as that would seem unnatural , so is private property, the very idea that something you use and need everyday could be together with you.Communism was simply an attempt to put the doorknob at the upper side of the door in high hopes that one day people will get taller and will reach for that knob , but people don't get taller simply because an idea want's them to be , so do people can't let go of the very thing that is in their nature - private property and the wish to get more of everything and the best of everythingAlso @Vanadium , well surely most of the communist experiments have failed badly and some less so because most of them if not all were actually just used as a sign or a slogan , what actually happened was power thirsty or rebellious folks used the slogans and ideas that unite masses to gain momentum in their fight for power and once they got it they slowly forgot what they were fighting for and so things just went back to norm , just this time a different kind of "normal"
So it's a double paradox , the very thing that renders communism in it's idealistic form impossible - human nature failed two times, the first was the idea to believe that humans could go along being equal and hard working for a better tomorrow , the second was the fail by the ruling class to see that their own thirst for power which is in their human nature turns the idea ugly rather fast.It's an interesting discussion but I would love if we could stop simply saying , A is bad - simply because I think so and B is good because that's were I live so it's out of the conversation , that is a childish form of patriotism which if not mentored correctly can grow into bigotry.

North Korea is a special issue which must be judged apart from others as it's a really weird way of managing a country even for socialists.So it requires a bit separate discussion.
And socialism is so vast in it's forms that it would take a long list to count , and I hope you won't say that simply because Sweden is socialistic then they are on the same level as N. Korea...

 

[zoobyshoe]

Each socialist state or as one of them should be called more of an empire , achieved different levels of advancement. In the Ussr for example life wasn't that bad , we too had discos and restaurants , it wasn't like we were eating grass.

What were the Ukrainian "Kulaks" eating under Stalin?

I think all your posts are riddled with the same kind of problem you're accusing us of having: you were raised at a certain point in a certain place with certain kinds of attitudes, and you can't step out of that psychologically. Your continued assertion that it wasn't as bad as we're making it out to be, is only possible for you to believe because you really have no idea of how freaking good life is here, in the first world. You are accommodated to a billion inconveniences we see no reason to put up with. To a large extent our whole lives are about weeding out unnecessary inconveniences. The kind of standardized extreme poverty that gets put in place in most communist countries is deeply tragic because it is so completely unnecessary.

 

[russ_watters]

Mheslep and others , why does every intelligent discussion involving westerners ends with "oh I think this is crap simply because I know noting and have never been to the country I'm so speaking of"

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/hyperbole

 

[Salvador]

I don't think it's a hyperbole russ , I think it's more of a hyper patriotic attitude.
You should have know zoobyshoe that the Ukrainian famine was specially made so that the ones who refused to succumb to the rules and work into the collective large farms were literally cast out by death.

Sure there are many places were life is better but each place has it's pros and cons , I once was talking to a man from the US , otherwise he was rather decent but this one thing that he simply had through his mindset was the idea he was fed since school probably that the US is the best and screw the rest and that the US might not be the best but it's the second best to none etc things he liked to brag about.You know how annoying and childish this kind of thinking is and it has nothing to do with where each of us is or was raised up ,I too could go on about how great my country is and how healthy of a food we have and that we have no black problems like you do in the US and many other things that you have like obesity etc but I don't do that because I'm way over that level I'm interested in true things in opinions in how things work , by the way there are many good and developed countries around the globe , places were children learn and are so smart even the US pales in comparison , so zoobyshoe - how good life really is for you there ? Are you in a constant awe simply about how good you are living so much so that it blinds your skills of having a multiside opinion about world history ?

I am not defending brutal regimes here , but the old Cold war thinking that only in the US things are super and elsewhere everything is crap is nothing but either a sign of old age and or lack of critical thinking and one sided information of which probably both are your cases.

If you look at what I write closer you can actually see how I compare and talk about how old western democracies have achieved a higher standard of life etc.
Then again because we as Europe and especially the former USSR have been through so much like both world wars , genocides etc we have a better shot at learning the future and standing more "on earth" as you do which is clearly seen in this discussions arguments.

I hope zooby you didn't get offended by anything I said and will not push the "report" button as many times as a gambler pushes the wheel but in all honesty I'm reading between the lines and there is this "US is the best and nothing more" kind of attitude I'm getting from whatever you say and I don't like that simply because if one wants to have an intelligent discussion like we are pretending we have here one must not use all of the emotions a scout in a patriotic camp uses to teach himself the love for motherland.I too love my country but I'm very realistic about that love , showing respect to those who died fighting for it and simply loving the nature yes but if someone is a fool or does wrong i don't care whether his my neighbor or the vice president of this place , I'll say what needs to be said about him or whatever is going on wherever it's going on.That being said , I'm not sure what are those million inconveniences you were talking about but probably one of the reasons why the US got were it is today is because it was largely formed by people who had one thing in common they were seeking a better place to live and advance , this hasn't been the case in Europe or elsewhere with nationalistic societies that have lived here basically since forever. It all has to do with mentality , also the reason why Mexico even though being next to US is so vastly lower in numbers and also why Canada has much less gun violence then the US and you basically can't hear anything about Canada in the news like it doesn't exist.
All in all the US has lived through it's golden days and now is in a slow decline and old problems which once were a bonus are now starting to bite like the slaves that once worked in the plantations are now a black majority which demand rights and riot in the streets whenever someone tells them that one of their own has been taken down throwing rocks at bypassing cars etc.

I assume the fundamental problem of the 1st world US and many of it's white citizens is that they don't realize that just because you inherited a well working system and things are good it doesn't mean that they will stay good or that they can't go bad.The modern western world is in a cultural decline and that will eventually lead to a purely economic crash.But I think the very fact that a planned economy and communistic approach to it doesn't work as human nature doesn't work that way is a long understood fact , I'm sure even alcoholics who can only drive a tractor know that both here and there so there isn't much to debate about that.P.S. if you want to hear a more detailed argument which is fact based about the modern western problems and how they actually have a lot to do with the very system that tried to overthrow the US way of life and the very ideas that many of you so openly dislike then I'd be more than glad to go on about it.
It's one of those paradoxes of life how the very ideas of Communism and Marxism which were rejected and feared by almost everyone in the US back in the 20th century have made their way secretly into the US by now in a different camouflage, the work of soviet intelligence services and with a lot of help from naive and foolish westerners who champion equality and social reform.
The soviets knew that taking down the US back in the day with brute force is only to result in world destruction including their own so they decided to go down a different path and make the fish rot from the head instead... , why aren't you folks concerned with that? Given that you are most likely conservatives.

 

[zoobyshoe]

so zoobyshoe - how good life really is for you there ? Are you in a constant awe simply about how good you are living so much so that it blinds your skills of having a multiside opinion about world history ?

Life is extremely convenient here, thanks for asking. When I read about how it is in North Korea, China, Cuba, and how it was in the Soviet Union, I am, indeed, more in awe of how good we have it relative to those places, and many others.

What is bothering me about your posts is your decision to cast us (in this thread) as unthinkingly patriotic by virtue of some indoctrination that doesn't actually exist here. It's insulting that you think we're that psychologically naive or socially conditioned not to think outside our system. For me, personally, one of the best things about the US is that people are free to do their own reading and research and go into great depth criticizing the obvious past depredations we committed, like slavery and the conquest by ruination of the native tribes that were here when we arrived, among many many others. It is routine to openly complain about the government here, especially when your party isn't the one currently in office in the White House. Government bureaucracy is generally and openly despised, and law enforcement is always being accused of going too far. Everyone openly hates the tax laws, and the rapacious practices of big business. I could go on for many paragraphs chronically the complaints you hear by Americans about America.

We are a highly self-critical society and do, in fact, constantly monitor other societies to see what's working or not there. I, myself, have not run across any practice or policy in any communist country current or historical that I thought we should adopt here.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm personally a mainstream Democrat with FDR style Socialist leanings. I voted for Bernie Sanders in the primary, in case you're familiar with what he stood for. IMO the US started adopting Socialist policies back when we freed the slaves. Capitalists are so rapacious they will resort to slave labor if allowed, and they have to be kept in check. Next, we did away with child labor, then we worked on shorter work hours and better wages. This was just a matter of people seeing people abused and wanting to stop it. It wasn't due to communist infiltration of the government.

I assume the fundamental problem of the 1st world US and many of it's white citizens is that they don't realize that just because you inherited a well working system and things are good it doesn't mean that they will stay good or that they can't go bad.The modern western world is in a cultural decline and that will eventually lead to a purely economic crash.

You sound like Khruchev, "We will bury you!"

Actually, most people now alive have lived through one economic emergency or another such that no one thinks it's an invulnerable or eternal system. The housing bubble crash around 2007-2009 seriously damaged a lot of people. I was displaced from the rental where I lived because of it, and many people I knew were cut back from full time employees to part time where they worked. Rapacious capitalistic real estate practices. Still, better than grass soup.

 

[russ_watters]

I don't think it's a hyperbole russ , I think it's more of a hyper patriotic attitude.

The word "always" is often an introduction to exaggeration and also by the way the "I know nothing" part is rather insulting. You don't know what people here do and don't know.

And while I don't know what your actual level of knowledge is, you should be aware that lack of knowledge is one of the foundational principles of communism in practice. Hiding how bad it is is an institutional function of government and indeed the openness of glasnost and associated reforms of perestroika are considered a big part of the reason the USSR ultimately collapsed: it's a lot easier to keep control when people don't know how bad they have it.

So if we play the odds here, it is more likely that Westerners know more about the in-practice differences between communism/socialism and democracy/capitalism than it is that current or former communists do.

... how good life really is for you there ? Are you in a constant awe simply about how good you are living...

No, unfortunately, luxury leads to complacency and even a sense of entitlement. So in my estimation Americans are more likely to complain about minor inconveniences ("this 8 oz fillet mignon you are selling is only 7.9 ounces!") than perhaps people without our luxuries are to complain about their major wants. The people who are in awe are mostly the immigrants from those other countries that had little and never fathomed how luxurious everyday life could be. I'm sure many people have stories, but a quick one: My ex-boss hosted two Vietnamese "boat people" (teenagers) in the 1980s and when they got to his house they kept opening and closing the magic box in his kitchen that was full of cold food. Both the existence of such a box and the fact that it was filled to capacity with food (right there in their house!) were amazing. But the supermarket was the truly Awe Inspiring sight. Their first trip to a supermarket was like most kids' first trips to Disney World. they ran up and down the aisles gasping in shock that such a place could exist.

As zooby says, our "awe" is mostly in the opposite direction: when we travel to those countries and see just how bad it is/was, it is saddening. Traveling from Western to Eastern Europe is a truly depressing experience even decades after the fall of the USSR.

...in all honesty I'm reading between the lines and there is this "US is the best and nothing more" kind of attitude I'm getting...

You're drawing a false connection: all Western countries are pretty much at the same level and we all know that. This isn't a USA vs communism/socialism discussion, it is a Western democracy/capitalism vs communism/socialism discussion.

 

[Salvador]

Well maybe I thought worse of you than you deserve and this goes both for russ and for zooby , although it's rather hard to understand ones perspective from an internet thread.
I've met quite some Americans through my life and most of them being older in age had this annoying US is the best attitude and I just didn't care to spend my time with such low life fools , sure they have better wages and can afford more but what good does it do when their fat as hell (no exaggeration , it was true)and their level of discussion maxes out at what they think of Kennedy and baked beef.And they can't learn to show respect to wherever they are at that moment.
That being said I don't laugh or judge people by their physical appearance but when they get on my nerve because of the way they think then I start to use their physical appearance as a tool for attacking them to that I can confess.

Also I can't quite agree with that you said that westerners are better of at understanding the world , no you aren't just because your ex boss saw someone looking at a fridge doesn't means he now knows how real pain feels like.Not to brag about it but still I reserve the option that people like me know the best of both worlds simply because we damn good know our way of life and because it's the 21st century and I travel and have lived in some western countries I do see and know how you live , surely I may not be an expert in all of your issues but the basic understanding it's right there.

Also funny how you guys took the parts which were not meant insulting as insulting and the ones with which I indeed wanted to open some scars you left untouched.

Yes zooby I do know Bernie and his policies , so I kind of agree with your choice of vote , he really was the only plausible candidate in this election he seemed a bit light I must say and I'm not sure whether he could take on Wallstreet as he spoke , I doubt that but I would probably reserve my vote for him too if I had to choose.But now his out so "go Hillary" :D

One more thing I have to call out , I don't like this "let's put all sides in one bucket approach" you can't physically compare the living conditions in the USSR to north Korea or elsewhere.Just because they had the overall same policy doesn't mean your grass soup approach holds true for all cases , educate yourselves in this matter please or stop using this wrong assertion.And this is not meant as an advocacy for the USSR it's quite simply the truth.
Maybe I then need to tell a little , in the USSR as one of you can't remember who here rightly said there was a shortage of stuff because that's what happens in a planned economy especially if priorities like military industrial complex always come first , but no one one was eating grass soup , we all had food and that was never a problem , so much so that due to the government policies even the worst drunks and trash got some jobs and money and they could afford some food and clothes whether now they can't because in a capitalist system they aren't needed , many of your black folks would have loved the Soviet union , they literally ran after you and gave you a job and then you could just drink and do your low profile job and get by , they didn't let you own a gun so their chance of killing one another would have been less likely then in current US.
Government built millions of apartments and gave them for free to workers , healthcare was free , although some of the things could have been better but there were no major viruses and disease running around like many if your fellow countrymen might imagine or would like to think.
Yes we did not have big v8 and luxury cars and ordinary people could not dream to one day be president and criticizing the government was not such a good idea but you weren't shot either.It's not like the KGB are some low level fools that they will now chase every drunk who says something bad about Kruschev , sure high profile folks were scanned for as long as they lived and then their children were next but if you understand then you know that such a system can only work that way.

But apart from the missing glamour we were rather well of and to talk about grass soups is an insult to me and my family and every man who worked at that time so pardon me but I will not hesitate to insult you even more if such stupid and flawed opinions will be expressed further on.
Secondly whenever we talk about these things one must be careful how to approach them , let me give you an example , people don't get to choose their birthplace , they simply come into this world and then they face the game.All those folks who lived through the almost century of the USSR gave their lives to that system and many of them produced wonderful things , things that have benefited not only the soviet union in it's space race or bombs production but also medicine , the treatment of disease , after all the current best try at fusion is a tokamak , the very design made in the Soviet Union's Kurchatov nuclear physics institute in Moscow, and I could go allday about the many things the Russians and all the other nations making up the giant USSR made and left to this world , so whenever you downplay those achievements you insult those people and all other hard working folks , and trust me no one here would have looked in awe at a fridge , for Christ sake maybe Vietnam was bad and I don't doubt that but to think that we too lived with no Tv's and no fridges and washed in our own piss is nothing more and nothing less than an insult and it's either done on purpose or it can then only be a lack of understanding.Sure you will go on and say but the USSR gave the world hundreds of millions of dead bodies and gave lessons to the then young and inexperienced nazies how to build large concentration camps , it almost started WW3 a couple times with the US and threatened the whole world on many occasions and made government overthrows in third world countries which then established communism and their folks then had to eat the very grass soup that has become so popular on this debate :d yes it did happen but that's not the whole coin , ow many times the US has overthrown a government , pre soviet Cuba was maybe better off than after soviet Cuba but it surely was a wild capitalist gamble and the US knew that but they didn't care because what does it change for them.Batista was a corrupt individual backed by the US , so there's one good reason why he got overthrown right there.

For many communism back then was a protest vote much like Donald Trump is today , sure they knew it's not going to solve much but atleast it will be their way so blame the capitalists for allowing the situation to escalate to such a position. Also if the Czar would have been more interested in his country maybe the year 1917 would not stand out in world history and Russia would have been a democracy , even though I highly doubt that and if you understand the Russian soul at all then you also have to understand that Russians really do think differently , that's one of the reasons why they could establish such a crazy experiment in the first place.
Also speaking about being better off , count in the fact that the US hasn't seen a war on it's soil since when ? The civil war ? and even that wasn't anywhere near as devastating as both WW1 and 2 were for Europe and Russia , pretty much everything was destroyed , most hings had to be started from the bottom much like Drake likes to brag about his life.That being said yes I do believe that a capitalist system could have made it better by tghe year 1960 or 80 then the communist system did.I would like to hear russ about your deeply depressing experience decades after the USSR ? Where did you have that experience and why was it so depressing? I have traveled both eastern Europe and Western and I can't quite understand what was so depressing for you...? Ok the roads are of lower quality , some other infrastructure may not seem so well and maybe some older cars but the people are friendly , the food is actually tasty compared to many westerner ones (more of a matter of mentality than money) and the nature is just as good if not better because back in the USSR we were too lazy to cut our trees down so we have saved a lot of forest which western Europe doesn't have anymore and many of them feel sad about that and I would too because I like riding a bike in an empty and silent forest, it's a great experience.Oh also your assertion that the lack of knowledge for the ordinary folks is the reason why the socialist USSR stood is not entirely correct , people did know , sailors brought home vinils with the Beatles and jeans from the US and secretly handed over postcards to their family members etc , it's just that ok you knew how life was outside and then what ? What could you possibly do with this information , sell it ? Everyone had money it was the products that were lacking , you see the KGB mastered a mechanism of silent fear and people simply accepted what they got and did not rise up or demanded something better , the very reason why my fellow countrymen dared to finally lay down flowers at a national monument in the end of the 80s was because Gorbachev took away some of the fear from the KGB.
So I would say it was fear and very smart oversight not the lack of information. You weren't allowed to travel outside unless you had some special reason like being part of a football team or an orchestra or a scientist, and then for every group of say 10 people some 2 were covert agents and there were agents waiting in that country and there were agents everywhere , and possibly one of the team members was an agent too because the KGB achieved this great unseen before intelligence capability because it had eyes literally everywhere , even ordinary janitors were part of the mechanism, the USSR mostly fell because this mechanism was slowly taken down and then when they realized that it's become too weak they tried to wrap it back up but it was too late , the water was already through the dam and so you now know what you wouldn't have otherwise know by any means.
Oh yes Americans and westerners in general do tend to complain about stuff people elsewhere would be totally fine with.But that has only to do with how good you live as I'm sure those who live under the bridge in the very US don't complain about Flint's lead water poisoning or Wallmart etc.

And when I mentioned Flint I just can;t help myself but to point out that there were shortcomings on both sides , for example who had the bright idea to install drinking tap water pipes made from lead?? Like laugh about grass soups all day but not even in the USSR it was a routine practice to install lead pipes simply because their cheaper , so capitalism has it's down sides.Folks don't take this too personally but I simply have to say something when I read and see that something is in contradiction with how I have seen stuff my whole life , I don't debate stuff I don't know I listen there but when I know something and someone tries to give a different account I think it needs to also see a opposite reaction to it.I do believe you are not the worst of Americans out there and I wish you a good day, and no zooby I'm not trying to make you seem overly patriotic , it's just my defense mechanism works that way, that I firstly cast every American into a sort of patriotic nut and then as I approach the "specimen" :D I adjust myself to him.
Surely I'm exaggerating now and trying to make a joke but indeed we all have our stereotypes about each other so there will always be some "bump and grind" between us (hopefully not in the way R. Kelly envisions that)

As I remember scrolling down this forums throughout the years I actually think I liked most of what did here russ and somewhere long ago I even remember zooby you took part in a homopolar generator discussion.

 

[Sophia]

Guys, I understand both sides. It seems to me that both parties have prejudices and you are beginning to cycle a bit and it's getting personal.
I suggest it would be useful to agree that in both regimes there were/are mistakes and injustice
in both regimes there are also good things.

I'd also like to add that yes, the idea that people in our countries ate grass soup and didn't have fridges is insulting and doesn't reflect reality. It could have been true for Vietnam, but definitely not here. No one here was malnutrished and no one froze in winter because they were homeless or couldn't afford clothes.
Another thing I want to point out on the topic of progress is that socialistic Czechoslovakia was the first country in the world that completely got rid of polio in 1960. Also, professor Raška was a member of WHO team who invented a vaccine against variola. So it would not be fair to say that health care here was of poor quality or that people used to die of infectious diseases or similar.
So I'd like to suggest that those who think of socialistic countries as some black holes would look at the other side of the coin, too. Again, I am not a communist myself and I see the tremendous evils that were done by the regime. I already spoke about them in this thread. It's just not all so simple, as nothing in life is.

I really like what zooby said about his political opinions. I agree with you fully. I find your and russ water's posts interesting because they show the reality of American thinking. You see, we here are mostly exposed to Americans who seem to be overly patriotic, but what you said here shows that America is complex as well. So we have no right to judge you, either. I'd like to read more about what Americans actually think about their country.

In conclusion, I suppose it would be fruitful to agree that both sides do have some sort of prejudices and it is important to see things more clearly from various points of view. Otherwise, I'm afraid, this thread could result in a conflict that would be completely useless and that would be a pity.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

There is no single communist country in the world, and there never was. Some were named this way.

Borek got it right in post 3 and he should know.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Salvador, there do exist Americans who talk about the US as if they had received some patriotic indoctrination. Most people with an education and liberal political leanings would characterize them as "rednecks."

A slang term, usually for a rural white southerner who is politically conservative, racist, and a religious fundamentalist (see fundamentalism). This term is generally considered offensive. It originated in reference to agricultural workers, alluding to how the back of a person's neck will be burned by the sun if he works long hours in the fields.

The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition

Rednecks, and people with redneck tendencies, are a non-majority of Americans. What bothers me is that you are treating people in this thread as if they were rednecks, when our opinions were arrived at by completely different routes. There pretty much aren't any rednecks at PF.

It also bothers me that you don't distinguish me from mheslep or Russ, or them from each other. Each of us three has a different set of values and different reasons for our opinions about communism. You have mashed us together several times and addressed us as if we were a monocoque mind. Which is pretty funny considering how many times I've been at odds with both in other threads.

I also have the feeling you take my criticisms of Stalinism as some sort of criticism of the Russian people, and of the people in the various Soviet states around Russia. To the extent anyone under Stalin did their best to help their country, and to make do with their own lives, despite him, I have no criticism. I'm also willing to believe that communism might have been much better under Lenin had he not died so young. There is good evidence he realized what Stalin was and had begun a campaign against him just before he died. I am continually appalled every time I learn something more about what went on under Stalin because of Stalin. I do believe his "ghost" is still around, too. As you said, it wasn't until Gorbachov that the KGB was de-clawed. So, I am not anti-Russian, or anti-Baltic. I just don't like seeing any person or entity amassing a lot of power by oppressing or subjugating a lot of people. Russ and mheslep have completely different political philosophies than me. To the extent you haven't bothered to try and disambiguate us, you do the same thing you accuse us of doing with all communist countries.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Guys, I understand both sides. It seems to me that both parties have prejudices and you are beginning to cycle a bit and it's getting personal.

History repeats itself:

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/nixon-and-khrushchev-have-a-kitchen-debate

 

[madness]

I apologise if this has already come up in the discussion (I didn't go through it all), but it's important to distinguish between private property and personal property if you want to understand a communist perspective. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_property#Personal_versus_private_property

Thus, abolition of private property doesn't necessarily entail that one cannot own their own home etc. I think the focus is more on the "means of production", which
should be owned collectively according to communism, either by the state or by the factory workers for example.

 

[madness]

Yes. Nobody starts a thread on "How does a fascist / Nazi economy work?" , with response posts asserting that there were never any true fascist economies because psychopaths took them over before they could reach their true potential. Not surprising I suppose given the media output. Hollywood has put out uncountable films demonizing the Nazis, and still has a taste for them. Hollywood also put out a pro-Soviet, pro-Stalin propaganda film at the behest of the US government during WWII.

There's a fundamental difference, as I see it. Communism has fundamentally good-natured aims, and drawbacks are based on how things have worked out in practice. Nazism, on the other hand, has fundamentally immoral aims, unless you believe in the superiority of a specific group of people and the inferiority of others. In other words, the "true potential" of Nazism would have been evil whether psychopaths took over or not, whereas with commism it wouldn't have been (hypothetically speaking).

 

[EnumaElish]

To get back to the OP, one thing I have been wondering about is the role of money in a non-market economy. My impression is that all prices and wages would be over-determined (i.e. dictated) by government "decree" (e.g. the five-year plan), including interest rates. Does that mean the "monetary policy" (such as it was) in, say, the USSR was determined purely on the basis of the desired exchange rate? If the exchange rate wasn't it, what was it?

I guess the money supply could have an effect on the black market prices but that must have been an inadvertent side effect, not a policy goal, IMO.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I apologise if this has already come up in the discussion (I didn't go through it all), but it's important to distinguish between private property and personal property if you want to understand a communist perspective. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_property#Personal_versus_private_property

Thus, abolition of private property doesn't necessarily entail that one cannot own their own home etc. I think the focus is more on the "means of production", which
should be owned collectively according to communism, either by the state or by the factory workers for example.

Good point. I wasn't aware of the distinction. In that sense I can't think of any examples of Native Americans having "private property."

 

[zoobyshoe]

Yes. Nobody starts a thread on "How does a fascist / Nazi economy work?" , with response posts asserting that there were never any true fascist economies because psychopaths took them over before they could reach their true potential. Not surprising I suppose given the media output. Hollywood has put out uncountable films demonizing the Nazis, and still has a taste for them. Hollywood also put out a pro-Soviet, pro-Stalin propaganda film at the behest of the US government during WWII.

There's a fundamental difference, as I see it. Communism has fundamentally good-natured aims, and drawbacks are based on how things have worked out in practice. Nazism, on the other hand, has fundamentally immoral aims, unless you believe in the superiority of a specific group of people and the inferiority of others. In other words, the "true potential" of Nazism would have been evil whether psychopaths took over or not, whereas with commism it wouldn't have been (hypothetically speaking).

For what it's worth, someone did post this thread:

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/was-the-nazi-party-socialist.684040/

IMO questions like this don't get asked because no one perceives Nazism as an economic theory, or of even having a coherent economic theory. None of their theories about anything were coherent. What they had were themes. Repeated themes.

 

[mheslep]

There's a fundamental difference, as I see it. Communism has fundamentally good-natured aims, and drawbacks are based on how things have worked out in practice. Nazism, on the other hand, has fundamentally immoral aims, unless you believe in the superiority of a specific group of people and the inferiority of others. In other words, the "true potential" of Nazism would have been evil whether psychopaths took over or not, whereas with commism it wouldn't have been (hypothetically speaking).

Anti-semitism is immoral, and was fundamental to the Nazis, but not facism in general, e.g. not under Mussolini before Hitler. Fascism has other evils independent of bigotry. Communism too is fundamentally evil, in its wholesale embrace of theft, and general embrace of authoritarian means.

 

[mheslep]

...Thus, abolition of private property doesn't necessarily entail that one cannot own their own home etc. ...

Communist Manifesto, Chapter 2:
" Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. "

If the state owns the land, the idea of owning your own home is a fiction.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Yes. Nobody starts a thread on "How does a fascist / Nazi economy work?" , with response posts asserting that there were never any true fascist economies because psychopaths took them over before they could reach their true potential.

IMO questions like this don't get asked because no one perceives Nazism as an economic theory, or of even having a coherent economic theory. None of their theories about anything were coherent. What they had were themes. Repeated themes.

O.K. I found the perfect quote to back me up:

He [Hitler] clearly believed that the lack of a precise economic programme was one of the Nazi Party's strengths, saying: "The basic feature of our economic theory is that we have no theory at all."

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

That article is quite interesting because it reveals that Hitler considered economics to be unimportant.

Here's Mussolini's economics:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Italy_under_fascism

In both cases their countries were suffering from extreme economic depressions when they took over, and it seems like the authoritarian steps they took to turn things around were essentially an attempt to get capitalism back on it's feet.

Capitalism is an economic system that can exist under quite a few different forms of government. Communism, by contrast, is simultaneously an economic system and a form of government. That, to me, is its biggest flaw: there is no outside entity to keep it in check. The wolves can scramble to the top and feed with impunity on the sheep below them. With capitalism, there is always an, at least somewhat, adversarial interplay between it and whatever government is in power.

 

[Salvador]

Ok zooby , pardon me for mixing you up with the other posters here and vice versa , I was just a bit too deep into the topic to notice who said exactly which specific thing at what specific time. Oh thank God we got rid of the grass soup atleast.I never wanted to insult you or anyone else as being redneck but if we continued to talk about grass soups I would have to arrive at the redneck conclusion whether I wanted or not because as you yourself clearly said rednecks are usually with poor education and a lack of information about how things go elsewhere and they don't usually even care so saying stuff like the soup thing can only be a sign of such tendencies , I do believe you were an exception and saying that was more of he lack of real life example as most westerners have that when it comes to stuff like communism , I think I'm not exaggerating here as apart from some books and TV which is heavily biased what else is there in the US to know about life in the USSR ?
Oh maybe the Beatles song - "Back into the USSR" in which they praised the socialist empire but then again they liked many different things and artists in general have a tendency for something "out of the box" that being said I like Beatles songs and their great.

@madness , you actually picked up a good line , exactly spot on , private property was illegal so no one could own a factory or a big farm but you could have and had your own house or flat , your car , essentially the things a person needs to live , a factory is not needed for living it's needed for someone to get rich or enrich himself , no one goes around thinking oh , my house is too small for me so instead of building a bigger one I will build a factory.

Here I feel I have to call out some untruths again , this time @mheslep , cmoon Mheslep (I wish I knew your real name because your nickname is not only hard to pronounce it's even hard to write) you said quote

Communism too is fundamentally evil, in its wholesale embrace of theft,

I believe you can do better than that and by saying this your reflecting more on your personal feel against communism and the USSR than the reality.
No where in the soviet constitution it was written that it's ok and fine to steal from factories or the government , in fact if you will , let me give you a bit of history on thios matter even though I believe we have been on about this one too.
Stealing public property was actually a serious crime just as serious as speaking against the official regime , it could easily give you some 10 years in prison with KGB interrogation along the way and trust me prison seemed like candy compared to a few hours with the KGB officers.those guys were always pretty serious about their game and I must say they enjoyed every bit of it.But back on business , in the early years of the Soviet Union stealing and theft wasn't widespread , under Stalin actually even mice didn't dare to steal cheese much less humans take materials from a factory , that's how serious Stalin was and his giant secret police machine.Then slowly starting in the 1960's after the "Khrushchev (another hard to write word) spring" people slowly released some of their biggest fears and together with the growth of industrialization in the USSR and much more new factories workers kind of started this illegal trade of whatever one could get. In the 80s it was very widespread and this is the reason you are talking about it because the system slowly got weaker and more humane , still for you it would have been your worst US police nightmare but for us it was actually very fine , so much so that there were even official movies in the 80's that included signs of sex and the life of youngsters listening to rock music etc , for the USSR this was total absolute freedom.Many great bands emerged like the band "Kino" with Viktor Tsoi. Try listening them , they sang about some sort of existential stuff and the first Afghan war and the shortcomings of the USSR in it's economy.

So this is how it slowly progressed but in no where the soviets advocated theft , it was simply the result of stagnating economy from the mid 70's onward and the planned economy where folks had much money but you had a lack of merchandise so surely people figured out ways by which they could put their money into use and eventually get what they wanted but what was rare.

So Mheslep I think it's wrong of you being an I assume intellectual human being to simply say "Communism is theft" no it;'s not , but the reason why it ended like that is I believe well explained in my upper paragraph.
Once again I will repeat , humans are selfish animals and the only system that can work atleast somehow in the long term is a system which plays by teir most selfish note - the one in which the little king gets all the stuff he wants and along the way can atleast do no harm to others or as little harm as possible which is modern capitalism with all it's regulations.All other systems simply fail because the little king (meaning us) doesn't like to sacrifice something in order to make both himself and his kind better in the long run.

Zooby actually said quite correctly that if the law would not prohibit the use of slavery as a means of production it would probably still go on today and if not today then atleast it would have surely went on up until the 1960's and it;'s social justice movements.One thing I would love to add here and it speaks negatively for the blacks is that back in the 60's they atleast knew how to ask for something politely and in a more intellectual way , today it seems that all the ghetto folks know is how to riot by breaking police vehicles and throwing rocks at bypassing cars injuring innocent people - a very pathetic and lower than monkey type situation which doesn't help some white guys like me to see them in the very light they so wish I would look at them.Let me say something controversial here but very true , they should be thankful they ere enslaved by the US because in the US they got free after all and so much so that now they can go on public riots , in the USSR they would have been simply killed and if they tried throwing a rock at a car or something along those lines Oh God almighty have mercy on those poor souls they would have gotten the beating of a lifetime and then go on to be missing...

Probably this is where Mheslep will start to hate me but I actually think authoritarian Russia is a good thing , you see you don't understand Russia , it has to be tough because if it will not be then crazy things will start to happen there and the last thing you want is a turmoil in the worlds second or third biggest army with the second largest nuclear stockpile and I'm saying this also from my perspective maybe even more than from yours, as My country even though being part of the socialist builders has also been at odds with Russia on many issues and at many times.Every time there's instability in the Kremlin the ground literally shakes beneath our feet.and historically every time there's turmoil in Russia thousands of our young men and women have died in a war that spread across Europe so I say Putin is the best thing the Kremlin has for now.
He is smart and probably evil , definitely outperforming most western heads of state in his "swag" but atleast his not crazy and that is a blessing , one which you will only learn to appreciate when something bad happens after his term in office expires , even though it seems like he will be there until his death.
Just one more thing as we are talking about this , it may not be directly related by anyway , I believe that there is a fine but great line between freedom when it gets chaotic and freedom with some authoritarian touch which is good , I perceive humans as fluids and I do believe they need containers to atleast give them some shape , because most humans cannot give this form themselves without some outer bigger means. I think we can see this in the west today , the very black protests not just in the US but in some of the European countries now too , let me be a bit ignorant to their cause and focus more on how they play out , I personally believe that nowhere in any advanced society or among any intellectually capable people there should be any protests whose sole purpose is fully lost among the actions carried out while protesting like demolishing cars , burning down stores , and useless violence , let me be even more hateful and say that I believe such behavior resembles an animal like thinking more than any human one , because our bodies are not that different from animals then what is there to distinguish us from a bunch of apes roaming around ? Our thinking I assume , the very ideas that we perceive , something that we agree on and then go on to build it.
Communism was one of those ideas but it didn't play well with our inner selfish desire ok fine let them have capitalism but whenever someone feels like going out of bonds and starting to attack innocent bystanders for his "sacred" mission I say lock him up and treat him with as much violence as he treated others.
So for me authority and authoritarian approach to regime is good.I think America would greatly benefit from some housekeeping and some tougher measures right now.Freedom is a volatile thing among intellectual apes because when the inner tendency let's loose there isn't much standing int he way.

I hope you understand my analogies and meaning and don't consider me as exactly a Stalinist which I'm not , Stalin simply made an "overkill" both literally and figuratively.

 

[Salvador]

@zoobyshoe yes, capitalism indeed has found ways into many forms of government , one of the things that makes Lenin turn in his grave is modern China , China is actually a rare example of a country which there is I believe only one. An authoritarian government with a communistic ideology in theory but with a very capitalistic economy and manufacturing , and add to that the Russian Czar like attitude towards the poor peasants in their countryside you get a real cocktail of a country and political ideology.
Sure you could go on and say Oh look , the evils of communism still running free there but I would say no.Many times we confuse the evils of communism with the evils of a certain group of people and their way of life.Don't forget that there is a reason why countries like China and Russia adopted such ideologies in the first place and why the US for example didn't - it has all to do with the difference in thinking and how they perceive the world.
Sure there will always be those who will say oh our evil government and the west will give them a stage and amplify their cry but we must not forget that the Soviet Union in it's early years was actually widely supported by the Russian people and the US tried to overthrow that movement in Russia with both covert and official means which to my mind was just another example of the US trying to teach the world how they think things should be run but as time goes by we see more and more that the US foreign policies are failing at an ever growing rate and I think that is the clearest example of the fact that not everyone in the world thinks like the Americans do. And thankfully so.

p.s. Just by the way , is the word "Yanks" considered an offensive way in which to refer to American citizens?

 

[Pepper Mint]

Not everyone in developed countries know a lot about the world. They only learn what world affairs they are mostly involved in via their TV news or media, I don't think they care or know for other things.

I understand that in free-market economies that people have the right to private property and own the means of production, while in a communist economy everything is owned by the government.

What does the ladder mean, though? Clearly, even if a communist country, people have their own individual houses, belongings, jobs, and an income, right? What, then, does it mean to say the government owns the means of production? Are people unable to make a profit that they keep for themselves? Is it all collected by the government and redistributed? If so, is it evenly redistributed? Or, would the largest producer get more back?

Also, if you cannot own something in a communist country, what does that mean? Again, people clearly have their own homes, clothes, belongings, etc. Does money exist and matter the same as in a capitalist, free-market society?

Your questions bring up a lot of biases about communism. I find the only thing you can't really own in a communist country is freedom of speech e.g one is allowed to defame or negate their own government and its policies. They are so strict about their communist theories and to build their facial values that it often gives rise to their lust for political power, then bribery and corruption as well as other social evil activities. And these are to be eliminated (in both Eastern or Western societies). Yet they are what cause things produced or profitable unable to get equally distributed. Or part of them must be offered to some officers involved. So when you have some people in a particular office do your paper works (e.g registration, applications etc), you have to offer them some tips even though its their duties to do that job.
You can make a profit from whatever jobs you do as long as they are legal and you pay taxes.
At least that is what it is in my area.

 

[Bystander]

p.s. Just by the way , is the word "Yanks" considered an offensive way in which to refer to American citizens?

Speaking only for myself, (gotta be PC) "No, I do not find it offensive." Few years ago, I could have spoken for the majority.

 

[Pepper Mint]

Speaking only for myself, (gotta be PC) "No, I do not find it offensive." Few years ago, I could have spoken for the majority.

You should be happy about my view towards you American capitalist.
Nationalism: NO, not many
Aggressive: NO, not much
Impatient: YES, almost
Enthusiastic, eager to join to play, work, cooperate etc with others: YES, very much
Thoughtful to mainly hurt others: NO because you are straight. This is different from many Canadian and Asian people.

 

[Salvador]

I want to add to what @mheslep said earlier about communism being evil.I kind of though about it and
the danger in ideas like communism is such that it sparks a rebellion against the status quo , maybe not now but it sure did back in the early 20th century.And after violent and abrupt regime changes such ideas usually tend to give the platform of power up to whoever wants it the most , and usually the folks who want the most power are the ones who have the nastiest and deep down evil desires , so the October revolution basically paved the way for a new Czar , only this time a more powerful and vicious one , also the Marxist Leninist idea of how to secure the revolution helped this situation , probably one of the worst things the Bolsheviks did was to exterminate the intelligence and much of the artists and people who had any greater thought than what to eat for supper.
I understand perfectly well why they did that because those with a head and a voice were among those who could influence the society the most so they needed to make sure that the society isn't going anywhere.But later on it backfired as the USSR was established in 1922 after years of devastating civil war , Lenin soon realized that the monstrous machine he had largely helped to invent is running out of control.
Basically many Soviet leaders and I'm not just talking about the official ones making TV news but also the many "grey" ghosts with high ranks and secret job profiles that shaped the USSR were rather evil and power thirsty guys.

So I do not agree that the USSR was entirely about theft and evil and bringing the world to an end but there is a strong correlation between an ideology and the people who follow that ideology.And the paradox here is that this ideology was good on paper and intended to make humanity and the world a better place but somehow it managed to do much of the opposite.
Communism stands out in this regard because other ideologies usually follow their policy and the folks who agree on that are also straightforward
the nazies never hid the fact that they want to exterminate Jews nor that they want to dominate the world for example and many other both religious cults or ideologies usually gather the kind of people you would expect but with communism it's different.

 

[madness]

Anti-semitism is immoral, and was fundamental to the Nazis, but not facism in general, e.g. not under Mussolini before Hitler. Fascism has other evils independent of bigotry. Communism too is fundamentally evil, in its wholesale embrace of theft, and general embrace of authoritarian means.

Ok I guess I was referring to National Socialism, which does treat one group of people preferentially over the others. I don't agree with your points on communism, you may think excessive taxes are theft, while others may think that private ownership of the means of production is theft from the primary producers. In any case, to put that ideology on a par with national socialism is getting a bit silly in my opinion.

Communist Manifesto, Chapter 2:
" Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. "

If the state owns the land, the idea of owning your own home is a fiction.

Why? It's perfectly possible to own my own home but not the land. In fact, that was precisely the point of distinguishing private and personal property. Land is "private" and can't be owned under communism whereas houses can be "personal".

 

[Seth1533]

My analysis is that that everything is just centralized to the government. Basically, it's the heart of the country because everything circulates back to it. Some examples would be: workforce, education, healthcare, military service, etc. The communist organization selects members of its population for certain roles, jobs, and choices. In more extreme countries such as North Korea, the government utilizes fear and controls the population. The "government" also has to pre-approve life choices such as: dress, hairstyle, number of children, internet accessibility, television, etc. I would also caution to use the term "fear" as solely describing North Korea because they don't just cause fear, they cause reason for it because of the slave labor camps, murders, and other severe punishments. In North Korea's case, the government is also fearful of others within itself.

I do believe it is immoral and violates human's rights. I believe in a free-economy and a population that is free to choose of many lifestyles and not forced to be a certain way in matters that do not intensely effect others.

 

[Mark44]

Communism too is fundamentally evil, in its wholesale embrace of theft,

I believe you can do better than that and by saying this your reflecting more on your personal feel against communism and the USSR than the reality.
No where in the soviet constitution it was written that it's ok and fine to steal from factories or the government

Salvador, I think you completely missed mheslep's point. He wasn't talking about stealing from the government; he was talking about the government doing the stealing...

 

[toforfiltum]

Hmm...nice discussion going on here. First off let me say that I have no deep knowledge about economic systems whatsoever. But I had always suspected that in a capitalist system, since it's fundamental idea is that of assigning the most value to people who are most productive to society, not everyone is of equal objective worth. I inserted the word objective here, because people tend to argue that they tend to value their family members more than any great leaders or businessmen. While this is true, their opinion doesn't matter at all to society at large. I always thought that income is a very good proxy for measuring the 'worth' of a person, and the rise in income inequality is something that always disturbed me. Not everyone are born with equal abilities, and certainly everyone can't be equally productive. By the way, I think that IQ and income is something hugely correlated, just look at Silicon Valley.

So I guess that communism has that lofty ideal in carrying out a system where everyone's worth is fundamentally equal. But the idea is too idealistic, like zoobyshoe said here, who is going to watch the supposed "distributor of wealth"? That person must be particularly selfless and the citizens equally so, for the whole system to work. Like it or not, people want to assume that their creation of a product or idea is rightfully theirs. And it is right in a sense, they worked hard for that. But it takes a lot of selflessness to admit that their successes are largely due in part to their inborn abilities, in which they won the genetic lottery. So, what I'm think I'm trying to say is that communism can only work if the citizens and government are all truly selfless.

Correct me if I'm wrong, or if you think I'm carrying too simplistic a view. While I believe that what I said is true, I don't quite like the view, I find it disturbing and in a moral sense, fundamentally wrong.

 

[mheslep]

First off let me say that I have no deep knowledge about economic systems whatsoever.

http://wichitaliberty.org/capitalism/capitalism-means-freedom/

 

[Salvador]

@toforfiltum nice to know you enjoy the discussion , yes you got that idea right , not all of us are equal even deep down to genetics not to mention all the other stuff.

@Mark44 , yes now I see I have missed mheslep point but still he isn't correct in what he said , now that I see how you meant that I must say you are even more wrong , and actually it's not theft it's just your opinion of how large a tax can be before you consider that a theft.
But here;s the fun side , nobody in the USSR was worried about taxes , there were literally no talking about those at all , and it's not because people were afraid to talk about taxes it's simply because the income was good enough even for the lowest of scum so that they simply had no reason to complain , the thing everyone was indeed talking about is that the production lines are not effective enough and so folks who had all their money couldn't buy enough of what they wanted , yet everyone got the very basic stuff and what they needed, it's just that to enjoy a more luxurious lifestyle one had to make all kinds of deals trading in favors and merchandise instead of simply taking his money from the bank and going to the shop to get himself a new car , officially he had to wait in line for the car so he used some of his friends gave them some rare stuff they wanted and they in exchange signed his papers and he got his new car faster.

Basically in every time in history those who have a good brain and can adopt fast have lived a good life but those who can't adopt or don't want to learn stay poor , the only difference is that under the soviet socialism these people were given atleast some "free lunch" so to speak of but in a capitalist free market system those people could might as well kill themselves or go and die and nobody gives two sh*** about it.

I believe I wrote this as clear as possible and couldn't say it any clearer.
And no @mheslep , capitalism does not mean freedom , freedom is a word overused like a prostitute much like the word love , it's true meaning lost in the translation. I don't think freedom can be assigned to a economic system , people aren't truly free in any system , it's just that the amount of freedom varies from system to system and from country to regime , in capitalism for example you are basically a "thing' and as all things have properties they can be exploited so you either have those properties or you don't , I think in capitalism freedom is directly proportional to the amount of useful properties you have because that determines how rich or poor you will be and in our modern capitalist world money means everything , if you don't have even the church doesn't want you , so basically what if someone doesn't have the ability to get money for some legitimate reason and his not being exactly a lazy drunk , then I would say he has no freedom , he can't even choose how to die as that too has to do with his lack of money and poor status which leads to all kinds of hunger, disease and poor living conditions.

Just because you mheslep have the cool opportunity to live in the continental US which has had a peace time for quite so long and a working economic model doesn't mean other people in this world have the same freedoms as you have under the same system that you so praise almost like God.Heck I think you could even find people in your area that have suffered under the very system you praise.
And let's not forget as zooby pointed out quite correctly before that capitalism without regulation is basically much freedom for the rich and wealthy and very less freedom for the poor and unfortunate.Because those who have the power will always try to remain in power and keep it and those who are poor have very little ways to enrich themselves and capitalism without regulation is basically a status quo state in which very little change if some at all is possible.It's like a lethargic dead body , it wants to die but it can't because as long as someone is willing to play by the rules it is kept alive.

 

[zoobyshoe]

But I had always suspected that in a capitalist system, since it's fundamental idea is that of assigning the most value to people who are most productive to society, not everyone is of equal objective worth.

The fundamental idea of capitalism is to make as much money as you can. There's no concomitant notion of assignment of value to people based on what they've contributed to society. Capitalism doesn't revolve around a sense of "society". It wasn't ever engineered or designed to address any social problems. It actually wasn't ever engineered or designed, period. It happened and it evolves.

If a rich man is perceived as being more important than a poor one, it's because it's assumed he has more power, which is quite a different thing than him having contributed more to society.