Liberty in Socialism?

[Ryan_P_McCarter]

IrishSteel wrote:You just don’t get it

I guess not. I just don’t get why you’re supposed to disregard all facts in favor of supporting your ideology and demonizing your enemies.

- the Soviets confiscated ALL of the grain from the Ukraine - directly causing the problem and causing millions of Ukrainians to starve to death!!

Got a source for that? Of course you don’t, because it didn’t happen. There is not a single historian anywhere who believes that the Soviet government directly caused the famine.

The fact remains that Russia had gone from the word’s largest grain exporter in czarist times to flat-out starvation due to soviet policies!

Well then how on earth did they afford all that industrial equipment? Especially in the face of the disadvantageous price gap between agricultural and industrial goods I previously mentioned?

Nothing you say squares with the facts, but you insist that you are right. Do you honestly expect people to take you seriously?

Yes, regional famines do occur from time to time, but this was the deliberate forced starvation of a population that could have feed itself had its own food been left to it.

You can’t just say that when it goes against everything that happened. Why release the grain stores to Ukraine if he was trying to starve them all? Why did the famine extend into other countries? Why, in light of periodic famines in this area of the world, would you even suggest that it was deliberate? Was the czar trying to starve his people when famine occurred under his rule? If not, what’s the difference (other than the fact that you’ll say anything to defame the USSR and further your ideology)? You deftly dodged these questions, but you can’t if you want anyone to take you seriously.

[Ryan_P_McCarter]

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
And where do you think that stockpiled grain that the Politburo possessed originally came from? Could it possibly have been the region that was starving to death because all of their grain had been taken by the Politburo . . …oh thank you kind Politburo for returning some of our food after 9 million of us have died![/quote]

You know the Ukraine is not the only grain-growing country over there. You simply assume (groundlessly, of course) that it was all Ukrainian grain, in a blind attempt to hold your story together. Regardless of its origin, it still doesn’t explain why he would send food assistance if he were trying to starve them all.

[Ryan_P_McCarter]

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

IrishSteel wrote:the reality that per capita income has doubled since the Soviet Era?

It does no one any good when the wealth is so concentrated–a point which I made that you curiously ignored.

“Since the Soviet Union broke apart in 1991, the transition has been difficult for many Russians. It has been an enormous adjustment that they were not prepared for. Many poor people frequently express the view that they were better off under communism.”

Suite 101 - How-tos, Inspiration and Other Ideas to Try

“Writing in Kommersant newspaper the economist Dmitry Butrin said that Putin’s relative success in fighting poverty over the last decade had been reversed. ‘The official poverty rate has gone up by precisely 6 million people. All of the gains in fighting poverty during the period 2000-2008 have been utterly wiped out,’ Butrin said.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/31/russia-economy-poverty-increase-putin[/quote]

You don’t even really read you own articles do you? GAINS IN FIGHTING POVERTY have been wiped out due the global economic collapse of 2009 . . . .[/quote]

Um, yeah Einstein, gains under the capitalist system have been wiped out due to the capitalist economic crisis. Got any other ingeniously devastating observations to make?

[Ryan_P_McCarter]

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

IrishSteel wrote:Ends justifies the means, right?

Since when do you care about innocent people being murdered? This country has killed as many (or more) people as the Soviet Union. Stalin was little worse than the average US president. Furthermore, this country is still extant, and we continue these policies, wheres the Soviet Union is no more. Where’s your censure for our brutal policies? Once again, you’re blinded by your prejudices.
[/quote]

Wow, back to ad homen and straw man arguments . . .

Russian calculations of the “unnatural” deaths of civilians (EXCLUDING WAR DEATHS) directly caused by the soviets (purges, gulags and other policies) at 33 million prior to ww2 and 17 million after ww2

50 MILLION PEOPLE KILLED BY A POLITICAL SYSTEM IN PEACETIME!!

That’s as many people as were killed in total during ww2 when you combine the deaths of every nation![/quote]

Wrong. The grand total of deaths in the Soviet Union through about 1952 was about 12.5 million. I’m even being generous here, and including the ~5 million that died in the 1921 famine, which was really caused by WWI. Your numbers are vastly inflated, of course I don’t expect an ideologue like you to check for accuracy–you simply see something you can use against the USSR (curiously enough, since they are now defunct, while other murderous nations are still very active, leading me to believe you don’t care one whit about innocent deaths, and simply wish to score political points) and seize on it.

By the way, how is it a straw man argument to ask why you do not apply the same moral standards to other tragedies perpetrated by capitalist nations?

[IrishSteel]

Median Estimates:

* In The Great Terror (1969), Robert Conquest suggested that the overall death toll was 20 million at minimum -- and very likely 50% higher, or 30 million. This would divide roughly as follows: 7M in 1930-36; 3M in 1937-38; 10M in 1939-53. By the time he wrote The Great Terror: A Re-assessment (1992), Conquest was much more confident that 20 million was the likeliest death toll.
* Britannica, "Stalinism": 20M died in camps, of famine, executions, etc., citing Medvedev
* Brzezinski: 20-25 million, dividing roughly as follows: 7M destroying the peasantry; 12M in labor camps; 1M excuted during and after WW2.
* Daniel Chirot:
      o "Lowest credible" estimate: 20M
      o "Highest": 40M
      o Citing:
            + Conquest: 20M
            + Antonov-Ovseyenko: 30M
            + Medvedev: 40M
* Courtois, Stephane, Black Book of Communism (Le Livre Noir du Communism): 20M for the whole history of Soviet Union, 1917-91.
      o Essay by Nicolas Werth: 15M
      o [Ironic observation: The Black Book of Communism seems to vote for Hitler as the answer to the question of who's worse, Hitler (25M) or Stalin (20M).]
* John Heidenrich, How to Prevent Genocide: A Guide for Policymakers, Scholars, and the Concerned Citizen (2001): 20M, incl.
      o Kulaks: 7M
      o Gulag: 12M
      o Purge: 1.2M (minus 50,000 survivors)
* Adam Hochschild, The Unquiet Ghost: Russians Remember Stalin: directly responsible for 20 million deaths.
* Tina Rosenberg, The Haunted Land: Facing Europes Ghosts After Communism (1995): upwards of 25M
* Time Magazine (13 April 1998): 15-20 million.

[IrishSteel]

High Number Estimates:

* Adler, N., Victims of Soviet Terror, 1993 cites these:
      o Chistyakovoy, V. (Neva, no.10): 20 million killed during the 1930s.
      o Dyadkin, I.G. (Demograficheskaya statistika neyestestvennoy smertnosti v SSSR 1918-1956 ): 56 to 62 million "unnatural deaths" for the USSR overall, with 34 to 49 million under Stalin.
      o Gold, John.: 50-60 million.
* Davies, Norman (Europe A History, 1998): c. 50 million killed 1924-53, excluding WW2 war losses. This would divide (more or less) into 33M pre-war and 17M after 1939.
* Rummel, 1990: 61,911,000 democides in the USSR 1917-87, of which 51,755,000 occurred during the Stalin years. This divides up into:
      o 1923-29: 2,200,000 (plus 1M non-democidal famine deaths)
      o 1929-39: 15,785,000 (plus 2M non-democidal famine)
      o 1939-45: 18,157,000
      o 1946-54: 15,613,000 (plus 333,000 non-democidal famine)
      o TOTAL: 51,755,000 democides and 3,333,000 non-demo. famine
* William Cockerham, Health and Social Change in Russia and Eastern Europe: 50M+
* Wallechinsky: 13M (1930-32) + 7M (1934-38)
      o Cited by Wallechinsky:
            + Medvedev, Roy (Let History Judge): 40 million.
            + Solzhenitsyn, Aleksandr: 60 million.
* MEDIAN: 51 million for the entire Stalin Era; 20M during the 1930s.

[IrishSteel]

Low Estimates:

you figure is that number . . .

[IrishSteel]

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Um, yeah Einstein, gains under the capitalist system have been wiped out due to the capitalist economic crisis. Got any other ingeniously devastating observations to make?[/quote]

So your theory is that everyone was living above the poverty level under the Soviets, then all of a sudden poverty appeared in Russia following the transition to capitalism and only because of the transition are there any poor in Russia? Is that your theory?

Care to come up with some actual data to prove that assumption. Mine’s ready when you find some . . .

[IrishSteel]

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
You know the Ukraine is not the only grain-growing country over there. You simply assume (groundlessly, of course) that it was all Ukrainian grain, in a blind attempt to hold your story together. Regardless of its origin, it still doesn’t explain why he would send food assistance if he were trying to starve them all.[/quote]

No, Ukraine made up the largest part of the Soviet breadbasket, but if you had actually read the article you would have seen that it included Kazakhs and other regions as well. But there I go assuming you would have actually read the article . . .

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…i don’t know if this is comparable, but i own an apartment and have to be a member of the HOA. It’s even required by law to have an active HOA. I have to pay 150 euros each month for the upkeep of the building, but if i don’t pay it the HOA can/will start legal proceedings to get me to pay the money or even evict me. Ofcourse i didn’t have to buy this particular apartment, but since all apartment buildings have a HOA, and i can only afford buying an apartment, i’m stuck with it…
[/quote]

two things:

1. this is fascism and not a voluntary contract. The government is interfering in your ability to make choices.

2. you still have a choice where you live though the governance is probably all the same since it is mandated by government.[/quote]

…we have equal votes: 6 apartments = 6 votes. We don’t have to pay 150 euros each month, but we do so in order to renovate the 56 year old apartment building. If the roof needs fixing, we pay for it out of that fund. Electric bills needs to be payed for the stairwell lighting and so on…

…that the state made a HOA mandatory came from the fact that many apartment building became dilapadated because the owners didn’t do the work that was needed. Is that fascism? I don’t think so, it’s more about people not taking responsability for stuff that costs money…[/quote]

If something is a good idea why do people need to be forced into it?

You should be free to compete against those that take short cuts and put them out of business.[/quote]

…because people in general don’t self-govern.[/quote]

What do they do, just walk around aimlessly?

[quote]
For instance: if i live in this building for 8 years without paying into the HOA, and there’s no money to keep the building upto spec,[/quote]

Why would there not be money for keeping the building up to spec? It should be included in the rent.

[quote]
the only downside to that is the resale value of the apartment. But because housing is scarce here[/quote]

Everything is scarce, what is your point here?

, and if i keep the apartment itself in good order; i’ll be able to sell the apartment with some profit in spite of the building’s condition…

Not sure how this means you need an HOA.

[quote]
…obviously if the building is in good order the resale value of the apartment goes up, but for most that’s just an afterthought. That the state made an active HOA mandatory does not mean the state stipulates which agreements the HOA must contain. That’s for us to decide. I realise i made it sound like i didn’t like the HOA, and i’m still on the fence so to say, but last year we have major sewage problems in our part of the building and the repair work was expensive. I’m glad we had the funds from the HOA to pay for it, just saying…[/quote]

[ephrem]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…i don’t know if this is comparable, but i own an apartment and have to be a member of the HOA. It’s even required by law to have an active HOA. I have to pay 150 euros each month for the upkeep of the building, but if i don’t pay it the HOA can/will start legal proceedings to get me to pay the money or even evict me. Ofcourse i didn’t have to buy this particular apartment, but since all apartment buildings have a HOA, and i can only afford buying an apartment, i’m stuck with it…
[/quote]

two things:

1. this is fascism and not a voluntary contract. The government is interfering in your ability to make choices.

2. you still have a choice where you live though the governance is probably all the same since it is mandated by government.[/quote]

…we have equal votes: 6 apartments = 6 votes. We don’t have to pay 150 euros each month, but we do so in order to renovate the 56 year old apartment building. If the roof needs fixing, we pay for it out of that fund. Electric bills needs to be payed for the stairwell lighting and so on…

…that the state made a HOA mandatory came from the fact that many apartment building became dilapadated because the owners didn’t do the work that was needed. Is that fascism? I don’t think so, it’s more about people not taking responsability for stuff that costs money…[/quote]

If something is a good idea why do people need to be forced into it?

You should be free to compete against those that take short cuts and put them out of business.[/quote]

…because people in general don’t self-govern.[/quote]

What do they do, just walk around aimlessly?

[quote]
For instance: if i live in this building for 8 years without paying into the HOA, and there’s no money to keep the building upto spec,[/quote]

Why would there not be money for keeping the building up to spec? It should be included in the rent.

[quote]
the only downside to that is the resale value of the apartment. But because housing is scarce here[/quote]

Everything is scarce, what is your point here?

, and if i keep the apartment itself in good order; i’ll be able to sell the apartment with some profit in spite of the building’s condition…

Not sure how this means you need an HOA.

…obviously if the building is in good order the resale value of the apartment goes up, but for most that’s just an afterthought. That the state made an active HOA mandatory does not mean the state stipulates which agreements the HOA must contain. That’s for us to decide. I realise i made it sound like i didn’t like the HOA, and i’m still on the fence so to say, but last year we have major sewage problems in our part of the building and the repair work was expensive. I’m glad we had the funds from the HOA to pay for it, just saying…[/quote]

…please read previous posts before you jump in, now your just responding out of context…

1. It’s a privately owned building, just one apartment rents from an owner. The rest of us bought the apartments.

2. You don’t seem to realise that the lack of space drives up property value. This results in a affordable-housing shortage, because land is expensive. Hence the scarceness.

3. Read the previous posts for answers to your questions. Please.

[Ryan_P_McCarter]

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Median Estimates:

* In The Great Terror (1969), Robert Conquest[...] [/quote]

Conquest’s numbers are well-known to be flawed, not surprising considering he is a virulent anti-communist who clearly has an axe to grind. Stephen Wheatcroft presents a much better analysis, drawing on more recent information. BUt once again, you’re not interested in facts, just a big number of deaths to throw in the fact of socialists since, as I observed earlier, you don’t actually have any legitimate criticisms of socialism.

[IrishSteel]

there you go picking out one thing and missing the big picture again . . .

[Ryan_P_McCarter]

IrishSteel wrote:So your theory is that everyone was living above the poverty level under the Soviets, then all of a sudden poverty appeared in Russia following the transition to capitalism and only because of the transition are there any poor in Russia? Is that your theory?

I never said there were no poor people under the Soviet government, but it is a fact that poverty has increased since the transition.

Care to come up with some actual data to prove that assumption. Mine’s ready when you find some . . .

Aside from what I already posted? What’s the point, when you’ll just ignore it, like you have most of my other posts.

[Ryan_P_McCarter]

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
You know the Ukraine is not the only grain-growing country over there. You simply assume (groundlessly, of course) that it was all Ukrainian grain, in a blind attempt to hold your story together. Regardless of its origin, it still doesn’t explain why he would send food assistance if he were trying to starve them all.[/quote]

No, Ukraine made up the largest part of the Soviet breadbasket, but if you had actually read the article you would have seen that it included Kazakhs and other regions as well. But there I go assuming you would have actually read the article . . .[/quote]

I’ve read that article before. But, had you been paying attention, you’ll notice that you still refuse to answer the hard questions: none of this supports your braindead “Stalin was evil” thesis. Please put a little thought into this. Just a little.

[IrishSteel]

stats? I have data showing the actual poverty levels and percentages - what do you have?

Where’s your proof that poverty has increased after the transition?

[IrishSteel]

So you your perspective is that Stalin wasn’t evil?

[Ryan_P_McCarter]

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
there you go picking out one thing and missing the big picture again . . .[/quote]

I tried to get you to comment on the big picture several posts ago, and you were uninterested. Like I’ve said, you’re not interested in facts, all you know is you hate communism (though you know nothing about it[you’ve been trained well!]), and you’ve got to have some ammo against it but, lacking any theoretical or practical criticisms, all you can rely on are grossly exaggerated deathtolls supposedly due to communism (why similar deaths in capitalist countries are not equally attributed to the ideology is a mystery you don’t care to explain, either). That’s why you’re so desperate to inflate the numbers–it’s all you’ve got.

[Ryan_P_McCarter]

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
stats? I have data showing the actual poverty levels and percentages - what do you have?

Where’s your proof that poverty has increased after the transition? [/quote]

Ooh, I hope they’re as good as your data on Soviet deaths!

[IrishSteel]

all bluff and no proof again