Liberty in Socialism?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
261

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

Well, as long as you go around spouting crap like that, you should expect for people to call you on it. You can support capitalism, that’s fine, but don’t pull out stuff like “the rich man is the poor man’s employee.” That’s stupid. You will never find a rich man who will trade places with a homeless person on the street.[/quote]

And again you are pushing propaganda, not me. We can go back and forth on this, but you are twisting my words, not answering my questions, and making fun of my instead of actually debating. Rarely is anything backed up, and when it is, it is poorly done. For example a chart that has 2 little lines of statistics on it, and this very limited source of data is extrapolated out to prove your point as if thousands of other factors suddenly do not matter.

Still not sure what you’re referring to. I said they had little to no influence. I might not have said literally “they have a tiny footprint” in the original post, but it’s the same idea. How is your lack of reading comprehension evidence of my propagandizing?[/quote]

Again instead of discussing this, you are attacking me. You say you don’t understand , yet you say I am the one lacking of reading comprehension. Attack, twist, and avoid the hard discussions. This is pure propaganda.

Well, first of all, I don’t know how you found a cooperative under the “same name” when I didn’t give one to begin with. But more importantly, unless this cooperative is currently operating in the 19th century, I’m not sure how it’s relevant, as I was talking about the 1840s and 1850s cooperatives. [/quote]

You didn’t? I searched for the exact term you gave me. Producers Cooperative. And I specifically mentioned that I found this organization.

I wasn’t sure it was the same organization, so I wanted clarification on the issue so I can understand it better, and in fact I was giving you the benefit of the doubt on this.

I never said it was the exact same organization, and attempted to find out more about it from you. But as of yet you have not once clarified anything about the issue. And how many times do I have to repeat myself anyway? Again are you sure you want to say I am the one with the reading comprehension problem? (Might as well play your game.)

How can you expect any sort of intelligent debate when you are so unwilling to supply more information about the organization you mentioned. If that is not the name of the organization, what was their name anyway?

Are you willing to give me any actual information on this organization you said was crushed by capitalists, or are you going to keep avoiding the issue?

I get such an urge to respond to all the incorrect crap you are putting here, but I have learned it is a mistake to keep expanding the discussion a few years back when I had a 13 page response.

Anyway toward the end of your post you had the following:

I meant to say antagonism. (Is there really that much of a difference?) I did slip up, and admit I mistakenly changed the word from antagonism to animosity. Is that better?

Now are you going to actually give the information about the Producers Cooperative you said was crushed by Capitalists nor not? I would like to find out what this was really about, or if you actually made it up that they were crushed.

262

Interesting thread.
However, we might need to define what “freedom” really means and meant some hundred years ago, beforehand.

263

It’s not propaganda to tell you that a statement you made is ludicrous.

You mean, except for the several graphs and articles I have given you? What you mean is, I do not cite sources favorable to your views, and you are upset that you are in the wrong.

These are all assumptions on your part, not faults of mine. The charts I provided show you in a broad sense what is going on in our country. They are the results of your thousands of factors, not an attempt to dismiss them. If you have a legitimate criticism, make it known instead of speaking so vaguely.

Here is what I said: "You realize that this has been tried many times, only to have the experiments crushed by hostile capitalists, right?â??

What is so hard to understand about this? Whoâ??s really the one avoiding the hard discussion? I guess itâ??s just a coincidence that you feel like the best system is the one youâ??ve been indoctrinated to believe in your entire life.

“Producers’ cooperative” is just that: a term, not a name. I’s like mentioning a joint-stock company, and then saying, “Hey, I found this Joint-Stock Company” you were talking about. It’s a type of organization. You managed to find one with that name, but it is not what I was talking about.

Oh, how munificent of you!

Yes. If you have a specific question, please ask it.

I am not unwilling, you’re simply not asking any questions. I told you that the organization you found was related to, but not one of the ones I was originally talking about, but of course you ignored this, and simply tried to paint me as a bully, focusing on irrelevancies and playing the victim. Again, if you have a question, ask.

This was a movement. There was not just one. There were foundries, tailors, cordwainers, etc.

I am not avoiding the issue. You simply do not wish to discuss it. You are more interested in extracting an apology from me. Once again, what information do you wish to have?

Such as? Nothing I have said is incorrect. I don’t make stuff up. I don’t need to. Your urge is simply to protect your ideology against criticism. It is a knee-jerk, emotional response.

Better? I don’t know. I’m not pissed off, you didn’t offend me. At any rate, it is more correct.

Again, what do you want to know that wasn’t said? They were worker owned, operated, and financed companies, where workers were employed at union wage scales. They were somewhat prominent in the late 1840s and 1850s, but the workers had little access to capital, and their well-established capitalist competition sold below cost until the cooperatives were run out of business. Not really that complicated, it just goes to show why the scenario you orginally suggested (“just start a coop”) won’t work.

Why would I make it up? If they weren’t driven out of business, but succeeded, wouldn’t that be an example of successful socialism?

264

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
This is utterly wrong. Florelius is right when he talks about the conditions for socialism. Just look at the history. The Bolsheviks, for instance, far from coming into power as a result of a proletarian revolution, as Marx predicted, mounted what was essentially a coup, and established a centralized bureaucracy ruling over (not with) a population consisting of approximately 80% peasants (not urban workers). Nothing was right. Your criticism is like trying to bake a cake by putting it in a cool oven, and then saying (after it fails to cook) that you’ve demonstrated that a cake is impossible. No, cake is not impossible, you simply didn’t have the right conditions for the cake to bake. The oven needs to be hot. In this case, had you waited for the conditions to appear, you would have been successful.

The reality is, it is quite a large process to develop a modern industrial economy. Russia at that time had little heavy industry, and was largely agrarian. Though they tried to do it with a different organizational structure, they had to go through the same process that Europe and America did to industrialize. Conditions were incredibly harsh in all three places, and Russia was worse simply because of the pace they maintained. I won’t defend their actions, but they weren’t entirely unreasonable given their circumstances.

If you don’t see instances of attempted workers’ revolutions in history, you’re not looking. And they have only been unsuccessful insofar as they were violently suppressed, which is certainly no inherent fault of socialism.
[/quote]

LMAO - you really don’t understand it, do you? Your analogy of the cake was all wrong - the prior attempts at socialism where not wrong in process (putting the cake in the oven) they only differ from your ideal worker’s revolution by how the cake ingredients were obtained - everything after that is socialism . . .collectively owned, collectively lead, collectively failed.

You’re appealing to the “worker’s revolution” as the requirement for successful socialism, when in reality the only difference between what you see as the ideal start for the implementation of socialism and reality was in how the ingredients for making your socialist cake were obtained - once the ingredients are there, that is when socialism begins.

Like I said - great on theory, horrible on practice . . .

265

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

Yes, it did. As Florelius mentioned, it was the fastest industrialization in history. Production of all kinds increased enormously. They were the #2 superpower in the entire world. Don’t try to pretend like they were some kind of third-world country. They beat us into outer space.

Furthermore, you’ll find that literacy rates shot up, mortality rates declined, and standards of living increased. The fact that they didn’t match the US, the richest country in the world that had numerous pseudo-colonies to exploit and a 100-year head start (not to mention that we had emerged from two World Wars virtually unscathed, while Russia was not so fortunate, to put it mildly) means nothing.

Now, this should not be misinterpreted as a defense of the Soviet regime, nor were they a socialist country by any traditional standards. However, an accurate reading of history demands that we take all relevant factors into account, and you’re definitely missing some big ones.

Look up Russia’s transition to capitalism. It didn’t go well. Does that prove anything?

[quote]I’m afraid you’ve swallowed too much soviet propaganda . . .
[/quote]

I don’t think it’s Florelius who’s swallowing the propaganda.
[/quote]

You need some more facts (I saw you conveniently ignored the couple I already gave you from a Russian source) here’s some more for you:

First, you need to read some outside sources rather than your socialist pablum

“No one now really believes that the Soviet economy functioned in any orderly fashion,” said Richard Ebeling, head of the business and economics department at Hillsdale College in Michigan. “Everybody accepts the fact that the official statistics were distorted for political propagandistic reasons and were far from the actual facts of the case.”

An estimated 14 million Soviet people died from famine in the early 1930s when Stalin collectivized all farming.

By the early 1980s, 16% of live births in the U.S.S.R. were physically or mentally defective due to malnutrition and poor medical care

Life Expectancy of a Soviet male in 1958 was 63 years, by 1991 it was only 62 years
Life Expectancy of a US male in 1958 was 66.6 years, by 1991 it was 72 years
I chose those dates because these were supposedly the great years of the Soviet Economy

Infant Mortality Rates in the Soviet union in 1985 - 26 per 1,000
Infant Mortality Rates in the USA in 1985 - 10.6 per 1,000

So how did the Soviet Economy look so strong on paper? Easy - They were cooking the books. Our Soviet experts proved that between 1985 and 1986 alone Soviet debt had jumped 50%, in 1998, our experts (based on the best information we could get) estimated that the Soviets were running a budget deficit of $58 billion, after the collapse, official Soviet documents proved it was actually a budget deficit of over $175 billion for that year alone.

This is why the move to capitalism after the Soviet collapse was so difficult - the reality of the true condition of the Soviet economy had been hidden under the Soviet authority and now that reality hit home, and everyone in Russian assumed it was the conversion, when in reality they were having to deal with the aftermath of the Soviet lies . . .

Need more proof?

Grain Production in pre-Soviet Russia was so good that Russia was the world’s largest exporter of grain. By 1963 it was another story altogether: "In 1963, Nikita Khrushchev sent a letter to the leaders of the Socialist bloc, informing them that the Soviet Union would no longer be able to supply them with grain. That year, the Soviet state bought 12 million tons of grain–and spent one third of the country’s gold reserves to do so. Khrushchev commented: “Soviet power cannot tolerate any more the shame that we had to endure.”

So they fixed it (sarcasm intended): “Therefore, in the 1960s, state production of grain stabilized and, regardless of attempts by the Soviet leadership, remained fixed at 65 million tons per year until the late 1980s (see figure 2). The cities, however, continued to grow. What policy could succeed if a country had no increase in grain production and an 80 million-person increase in its urban population?”

Oil production has another sad set of statistics . … I’ll save that for another time.

The reality of the Soviet collapse was that it was caused by the true economic realities of the Soviet financial condition, which were much grimmer and more desperate than the pretty rosy reports from the Politburo ever let anyone believe.

266

Let’s throw some more stats in there in for you:

in 1990:

Population: US = 250 Million, USSR = 290 million

Literacy rate: US = 99%, USSR = 98%

USSR Labor Force = 152 Million Workers / USA Labor Force = 125 Million Workers

USSR GNP =$2.659 trillion, USA GNP = $53.233 trillion - double that of the USSR with 17% fewer workers

Per capita income: USSR $9,211 w/real growth rate of 1.4%, USA = $21,082.00 w/real growth rate of 2.9%- 140% higher in the USA

let’s look at infrastructure. remember USSR was 2.5 times larger than the US

Railroad tracks: USSR 146,000 km of rails, USA 270,312 km of rails

Paved Roads: USSR 1.2 million km of paved roads, USA 6.4 million km of paved roads

Do you need more? just let me know . . .

267

Here’s one more nail in that silly theory of yours - direct from the top:

in 1988, Mikhail Gorbachev had told the Central Committee of the Communist Party that, except for vodka sales and the higher prices paid for Soviet oil, the Soviet economy had not grown for twenty years (â??Communiquéâ?? 1988, 1; see also Bergson 1988 and Franklin 1988).

268

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Like I said - great on theory, horrible on practice . . . [/quote]

Just being picky here, but I never understood why people say this. If something is bad in practice, it is bad in theory. A good theory takes into account its own practical application and the real life consequences of its implementation. Not a big deal, but I thought it was worth a mention.

269

[quote]Dabba wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Like I said - great on theory, horrible on practice . . . [/quote]

Just being picky here, but I never understood why people say this. If something is bad in practice, it is bad in theory. A good theory takes into account its own practical application and the real life consequences of its implementation. Not a big deal, but I thought it was worth a mention.[/quote]

You misunderstood my comment. Ryan is great on socialist theory, but horrible on its actual reality when in practice.

270

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]Dabba wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Like I said - great on theory, horrible on practice . . . [/quote]

Just being picky here, but I never understood why people say this. If something is bad in practice, it is bad in theory. A good theory takes into account its own practical application and the real life consequences of its implementation. Not a big deal, but I thought it was worth a mention.[/quote]

You misunderstood my comment. Ryan is great on socialist theory, but horrible on its actual reality when in practice.[/quote]

Well I was just speaking more generally, that someone can’t really present a good theory if the theory isn’t practical, but I see your point.

271

Oh, OK. I enumerated many ways in which it was not at all socialism, but if you simply say so, that’s good enough for me.

[quote]You’re appealing to the “worker’s revolution” as the requirement for successful socialism, when in reality the only difference between what you see as the ideal start for the implementation of socialism and reality was in how the ingredients for making your socialist cake were obtained - once the ingredients are there, that is when socialism begins.

Like I said - great on theory, horrible on practice . . . [/quote]

But you’ve just confirmed that you don’t understand the first thing about the theory. So what you say carries little weight with me.

But, whatever it takes to keep you from thinking. I know it’s uncomfortable, so I won’t ask you to do it again. Just please let the serious members have a discussion.

272

I need some proof to begin with before you give me more. But really, you’re the one who needs the proof–you’re trying much harder to convince yourself that the Soviet economy didn’t work than you are me. That’s why you’re trying to avoid the obvious observations that they achieved industrialization faster than any country in history, put the first man in space, and were the number 2 superpower in the world, all after having the country essentially destroyed after both World Wars. But, pay no attention to these obvious facts…

Also ignore that after the first Five Year Plan, electricity production rose 2.5x, coal production rose 1.8x, and steel production rose 50%, all with negligible foreign investment and in the face of a disadvantageous price gap between agricultural and industrial products.

Was the Soviet economy optimal? No. Did they make mistakes, and was there mismanagement? Of course. But you only make yourself look like a fool when you deny the obvious achievements of the Soviets. You don’t have to agree with they way they did it. I don’t.

273

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Let’s throw some more stats in there in for you:

in 1990:

Population: US = 250 Million, USSR = 290 million

Literacy rate: US = 99%, USSR = 98%

USSR Labor Force = 152 Million Workers / USA Labor Force = 125 Million Workers

USSR GNP =$2.659 trillion, USA GNP = $53.233 trillion - double that of the USSR with 17% fewer workers

Per capita income: USSR $9,211 w/real growth rate of 1.4%, USA = $21,082.00 w/real growth rate of 2.9%- 140% higher in the USA

let’s look at infrastructure. remember USSR was 2.5 times larger than the US

Railroad tracks: USSR 146,000 km of rails, USA 270,312 km of rails

Paved Roads: USSR 1.2 million km of paved roads, USA 6.4 million km of paved roads

Do you need more? just let me know . . .[/quote]

Again, are you really going to brag about this, when the US not only had access to boatloads of foreign cash, but also had a 100 year head start? Seriously, an entire century, plus Russia was heavily damaged and lost 23 million people after WWII, whereas we came out with little more than a bloody nose (comparatively). That Russia could even be compared to the US is a massive compliment. So, thanks for posting this quite impressive list of Russia’s achievements.

274

Haha!

“Over the past 15 years of the transition to capitalism almost all basic industries, energy, mining, communications, infrastructure and wholesale trade industries have been taken over by European and US multi-national corporations and by mafia billionaires or they have been shut down. This has led to massive unemployment and temporary employment, relative stagnation, vast out-migration and the de-capitalization of the economy via illegal transfers, money laundering and pillage of resources.”

“In Poland, the former Gdansk Shipyard, point of origin of the Solidarity Trade Union, is closed and now a museum piece. Over 20% of the labor force is officially unemployed (Financial Times, Feb. 21/22, 2004) and has been for the better part of the decade. Another 30% is “employed” in marginal, low paid jobs (prostitution, contraband, drugs, flea markets, street venders and the underground economy). In Bulgaria, Rumania, Latvia, and East Germany similar or worse conditions prevail: The average real per capita growth over the past 15 years is far below the preceding 15 years under communism (especially if we include the benefits of health care, education, subsidized housing and pensions). Moreover economic inequalities have grown geometrically with 1% of the top income bracket controlling 80% of private assets and more than 50% of income while poverty levels exceed 50% or even higher. In the former USSR, especially south-central Asian republics like Armenia, Georgia, and Uzbekistan, living standards have fallen by 80%, almost one fourth of the population has out-migrated or become destitute and industries, public treasuries and energy sources have been pillaged. The scientific, health and educational systems have been all but destroyed. In Armenia, the number of scientific researchers declined from 20,000 in 1990 to 5,000 in 1995, and continues on a downward slide (National Geographic, March 2004). From being a center of Soviet high technology, Armenia today is a country run by criminal gangs in which most people live without central heat and electricity.”

It was difficult “because of Soviet lies.” Get real. It was difficult for all the reasons Marx and others laid out over one hundred years ago.

275

[quote]Dabba wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Like I said - great on theory, horrible on practice . . . [/quote]

Just being picky here, but I never understood why people say this. If something is bad in practice, it is bad in theory. A good theory takes into account its own practical application and the real life consequences of its implementation. Not a big deal, but I thought it was worth a mention.[/quote]

Not necessarily. The theory can be “good,” in the sense that its conclusions logically follow from its assumptions, but bad in practice, as it makes bad assumptions. I see what you mean, but I thought I’d clarify.

276

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

Oh, OK. I enumerated many ways in which it was not at all socialism, but if you simply say so, that’s good enough for me.

[quote]You’re appealing to the “worker’s revolution” as the requirement for successful socialism, when in reality the only difference between what you see as the ideal start for the implementation of socialism and reality was in how the ingredients for making your socialist cake were obtained - once the ingredients are there, that is when socialism begins.

Like I said - great on theory, horrible on practice . . . [/quote]

But you’ve just confirmed that you don’t understand the first thing about the theory. So what you say carries little weight with me.

But, whatever it takes to keep you from thinking. I know it’s uncomfortable, so I won’t ask you to do it again. Just please let the serious members have a discussion.
[/quote]

and when all else fails resort to ad homen attack . . . staying true to your form . . .

277

What is this supposed to mean? That I mess up when I attempt to put socialism into practice? When have I done this? What else could you mean by this? Seeing as how I’ve already cured your ignorance, and explained to you how the USSR did not meet one single requirement for socialism, I’m mystified as to your meaning. Unless you simply disregarded what I said, and are continuing to try to misrepresent the USSR as being socialist. This is likely the case, as you don’t have any legitimate criticisms of socialism (how could you? you don’t even know what it is), so you’re desperate to retain the USSR as a socialist punching bag, because otherwise, you have nothing to say.

To illustrate the impropriety of your statements, let me set up a scenario for you: imagine that I made the claim that capitalism leads to genocide, and gave Nazi Germany as an exmaple. You would immediately fly of the handle and rebuke me for my ignorance, and rightly so. You would likely make the claim that Nazi Germany was not a capitalist economy, and thus my criticism was unfounded.

Now, let’s turn things around. Here, you are associating socialism with famine, purges, etc., using the example of the Soviet Union. Now, we can see by the aid of this example the fallacy you have engaged in, but how much more dubious does your claim look when we observe that Nazi Germany was much closer to capitalism than Soviet Russia was to socialism?

278

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

I need some proof to begin with before you give me more. But really, you’re the one who needs the proof–you’re trying much harder to convince yourself that the Soviet economy didn’t work than you are me. That’s why you’re trying to avoid the obvious observations that they achieved industrialization faster than any country in history, put the first man in space, and were the number 2 superpower in the world, all after having the country essentially destroyed after both World Wars. But, pay no attention to these obvious facts…

Also ignore that after the first Five Year Plan, electricity production rose 2.5x, coal production rose 1.8x, and steel production rose 50%, all with negligible foreign investment and in the face of a disadvantageous price gap between agricultural and industrial products.

Was the Soviet economy optimal? No. Did they make mistakes, and was there mismanagement? Of course. But you only make yourself look like a fool when you deny the obvious achievements of the Soviets. You don’t have to agree with they way they did it. I don’t.

[/quote]

that 5 year plan who’s success was made possible by the purposeful slaughter of millions of Russians? That one? Sure, it’s easy to focus your resources on industrialization when you choose to not feed your population.

Here, read the foundation for that great success:

279

A substanceless post on your part deserves a substanceless reply.

280

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Let’s throw some more stats in there in for you:

in 1990:

Population: US = 250 Million, USSR = 290 million

Literacy rate: US = 99%, USSR = 98%

USSR Labor Force = 152 Million Workers / USA Labor Force = 125 Million Workers

USSR GNP =$2.659 trillion, USA GNP = $53.233 trillion - double that of the USSR with 17% fewer workers

Per capita income: USSR $9,211 w/real growth rate of 1.4%, USA = $21,082.00 w/real growth rate of 2.9%- 140% higher in the USA

let’s look at infrastructure. remember USSR was 2.5 times larger than the US

Railroad tracks: USSR 146,000 km of rails, USA 270,312 km of rails

Paved Roads: USSR 1.2 million km of paved roads, USA 6.4 million km of paved roads

Do you need more? just let me know . . .[/quote]

Again, are you really going to brag about this, when the US not only had access to boatloads of foreign cash, but also had a 100 year head start? Seriously, an entire century, plus Russia was heavily damaged and lost 23 million people after WWII, whereas we came out with little more than a bloody nose (comparatively). That Russia could even be compared to the US is a massive compliment. So, thanks for posting this quite impressive list of Russia’s achievements.

[/quote]

I see how you focused only on the comparative stats and ignored the ones that showed the reality of life in Russia.