That’s not what we were talking about (and at any rate, I’ve already sort of addressed this, twice, and you [surprise] ignored it). You’re trying to avoid admitting you were totally wrong in the discussion earlier. It’s why you continue to try to change the topic and why you STILL have not addressed half of what I wrote.
But go on pretending it’s me ignoring facts. Just don’t expect us to take you seriously.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
That’s not what we were talking about (and at any rate, I’ve already sort of addressed this, twice, and you [surprise] ignored it). You’re trying to avoid admitting you were totally wrong in the discussion earlier. It’s why you continue to try to change the topic and why you STILL have not addressed half of what I wrote.
But go on pretending it’s me ignoring facts. Just don’t expect us to take you seriously.[/quote]
yes, that’s what we’ve been talking about all along - the “superiority” of socialism . . .
No, you’ve not addressed the request for the best argument for socialism. You’ve spent a lot of time calling me stupid, but you have to yet to post your best argument on behalf of socialism . . . in fact, you’ve yet to post a single coherent post in defense of socialism.
You’ve proven nothing wrong, merely posted your opinion with one or two slightly connected proof links, but that’s about the sum of it. Half of what you wrote is calling me stupid, the other half is just your opinion . . . I won’t bother with the stupid comments and sorry, but opinion is just that . . opinion.
This entire discussion between us started of my statement that you could not show a single success for socialism as the single political/economic policy of a nation ANYWHERE! This can be found on page 8
You responded that I didn’t have the foggiest idea of what i was talking about - pg 8
to which I responded (sarcastically) - then show me an example where it was true - pg 8
I called you out on pg 9 because you still have not posted anything - pg 9
to which you replied that I was obviously not serious and you weren’t going to respond pg 9
I replied that i was indeed serious - where was your argument - pg 9
I was still waiting on page 10 - pg 10
to which you replied that i could just keep on waiting - pg 10
I said you must not have a example then - pg 10
to which you agreed - no perfect socialist example - pg 10
I started another thread with Flo about the failure of the Soviet Union - pg 11
at which point - instead of answering the original question posed to you, you began a weak defense of the history of the Soviet Union - praising their industrialization despite the costs in millions of human lives - along with a lame cake analogy - all opinion, no facts - pg 11
I replied by correcting your analogy and provided 4 or 5 posts filled with stats - pg 11
to which you replied by focusing on the transition to capitalism - blaming all of the hardships experienced during the transition on capitalism - pg 11
I replied that the transition was difficulty due in very large way on the lies and deceptions and debt racked up by the Politburo in the decades prior to the transition - pg 12
At which point you jumped back to the inception of the USSR - pg 12
I replied with details about the loss of human life during the “great” 5 year plans - pg 12
to which you replied (without proof) that there was loss of life, but no slaughter - pg 12
I replied with highlights of the Holomodur - pg 12
to which you replied by switching back to the discussion about the transition and actually linked two newspaper articles - you also tried to move the discussion away from the loss of life in the 5 year plans by accusing me of not caring about the loss of human life - pg 12
I replied by showing that your articles proved my point about the improvement in fighting poverty levels established under the soviets, responded to your defense of the soviets releasing “confiscated” grain, and responded to your ad homen attacks - pg 12
to which you replied by calling me stupid, repeating your opinions and offering NO proof - pg 13
I replied with median and high estimates of the loss of life, showed that you had chosen the lowest figure (not even the median figure) about the number of innocent civilian killed outside of war by the Soviets - pg 13
to which you responded by criticizing one of the historians quoted - which does nothing to detract from the general consensus of the numbers - and you went on to state that poverty increased under the capitalists as compared to the soviets,again without proof - pg 13
I asked for stats to back up your poverty claim, and asked if you thought that Stalin was not evil - pg 13
I kept asking for proof and you kept dodging - pg 13
finally you responded with some links that gave general conclusions about poverty - pg 13
I countered with hard stats based on actually data - pg 13
To which you replied with some articles talking about individual experiences and opinions under the transition, and tried to switch back to the discussion about the Great Plans and somehow blaming the great depression for the millions of deaths in the Soviet union, and some data about life expectancy rates - pg 14
I replied that we were not discussing the Great Depression, but the deaths of millions of innocents due to soviet policy, showed that your life expectancy chart proved the lower life expectancy created by the Soviets ruling Russia for most of a century while the rest of the world improved - pg 14
to which you replied that you don’t know why we were talking about the USSR when the discussion was supposed to be about socialism,made some vague appeal to all your supposed “proof” and call me stupid a few times for good measure - pg 14
I tried to explain the course of our discussion and how you chose to run down the Soviet path rather than answering my original question. and challenged you to answer the original question - pg 14
to which you replied that i was stupid and had missed your answer (that no perfect example existed) and that you had so proven me wrong, or something like that . . . pg 14
I then challenged you to provide your best argument for the superiority of socialism (new direction) since no perfect example existed - pg 14
we’ve gone back and forth a few more posts with me asking for your best argument and you trying to avoid the questions - pg 14-15
and here we are . . . it is what we have been talking about and I have conveniently summarized the history to show you just that . . .
NOW, where’s that great argument for socialism?
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
NOW, where’s that great argument for socialism?
[/quote]
Irish – you are a very patient man. Ryan insists that the entire 20th century experiment with various forms of Socialism/Communism were all failures precisely because nobody really tried to do it (oh yeah, the Khmer Rogue were such pansies). So he calls for a return to the pure unadulterated goodness of “real” Socialism.
In other words, he is a Socialist Fundamentalist.
Good Luck on getting him engaged in anything that shakes his faith…
FWIW the fall in Soviet longevity is most likely due to the fact that after the Soviet state failed, accurate information finally was reported – in all likelihood the figures had, as with virtually every other statistic, been systematically falsified for years.
– jj
[quote]jj-dude wrote:Irish – you are a very patient man. Ryan insists that the entire 20th century experiment with various forms of Socialism/Communism were all failures precisely because nobody really tried to do it (oh yeah, the Khmer Rogue were such pansies). So he calls for a return to the pure unadulterated goodness of “real” Socialism.
In other words, he is a Socialist Fundamentalist.[/quote]
Rather, I’m simply familiar with the basics of taxonomy. If a species possesses no qualities essential to the constitution of a particular class, then it is not of that class.
Please do explain to me how the USSR was socialist when they possessed a whopping 0 of the characteristics of socialism. You know, since your condemnation of socialism is based on an accurate knowledge of it (the fact that you confuse Marx with the Physiocrats means nothing, I’m sure).
[quote]FWIW the fall in Soviet longevity is most likely due to the fact that after the Soviet state failed, accurate information finally was reported – in all likelihood the figures had, as with virtually every other statistic, been systematically falsified for years.
– jj[/quote]
There was no fall in Soviet longevity, only Russian longevity after the introduction of capitalism. What was it you were saying about “not believing anything that shakes one’s faith”?
If you have a point, please make it known.
Not with me. You made an uninformed and obviously wrong statement about the Soviet economy, and I corrected your foolishness. Unsurprisingly, you became belligerent.
That’s because it is not what we were talking about. I’ve desperately tried to get you to address my posts, but in your attempt to save face you’ve refused, wishing instead to change the subject since you’ve obviously lost the original argument.
There are several threads full of arguments for socialism. Read them if you’re interested. There is a great body of literature explaining clearly the merits and theory of socialism. Read them if you’re interested. But do not attempt to weasel out of the original conversation and then try to accuse me of going off-topic. It’s pathetic.
Haha, “one or two slightly-connected[…]!” Uncover your eyes, then. You’ll find them quite relevant, but of course, they do make you look like a fool.
Sorry, these clearly address the topic:
http://www.worldbank.org/html/prddr/trans/so95/oct-ar2.htm
http://www.census.gov/prod/3/98pubs/cenbr985.pdf
http://www.developmentandtransition.net/img/Slay%20graph31.jpg
And just to be clear, yes, these were all previously posted. Let me guess: you missed them? “One or two.” Give me a break.
Read the previous links, please, and then tell me what in the world opinion has to do with this.
True, and not surprisingly, you did not address my reply. You can’t simply pretend that my replies are there and then say, “Well, what do you have to say about that? You haven’t answered me!” You’re either criminally stupid, or you’re lying. Take your pick.
[quote]You responded that I didn’t have the foggiest idea of what i was talking about - pg 8
to which I responded (sarcastically) - then show me an example where it was true - pg 8
I called you out on pg 9 because you still have not posted anything - pg 9[/quote]
As I just said, I did post a reply that showed the logical flaw in your post, to which you did not respond. I’m waiting on you to answer, not the other way around.
[quote]I started another thread with Flo about the failure of the Soviet Union - pg 11
at which point - instead of answering the original question posed to you, you began a weak defense of the history of the Soviet Union - praising their industrialization despite the costs in millions of human lives - along with a lame cake analogy - all opinion, no facts - pg 11[/quote]
Sorry chum, see all those links above you? Those aren’t opinions. Deal with it. Completely refuting every asinine claim you made does not equal “a weak defense.” Jesus Christ, just man up and admit that you were wrong. Everyone can see that you are. I won’t gloat, just admit you were mistaken and end the charade, please.
No, you replied with a weak attempt at distorting the analogy.
If the pages of articles, graphs, and links I’ve posted are “nothing but opinion,” then your 4 or 5 undocumented posts don’t mean shit. You must not be very confident in your opinions if you have to so badly misrepresent facts and deny the obvious to make your case.
Of course! Why in the hell wouldn’t you? You blamed everything that happened in Soviet Russia on the transition to socialism. To blame “socialism” for everything that happened in Soviet Russia, and then to suggest that we shouldn’t blame capitalism for the exact same thing in reverse is one of the most blatantly hypocritical suggestions I’ve ever heard in my life. If you don’t respond to anything else in this post, please explain to me how this is not simply a pathetic attempt to protect your ideology against an avalanche of hard facts.
(Incidentally, I said all this before in another post, which you–you guessed it–ignored.)
Yes, that would be one of those unsupported opinions you were complaining about earlier. Do you really just not see all the double-standards in your posts?
To which I replied that your hypocrisy was on full display yet again, as you show no similar compassion for capitalism’s millions of victims. Again, you did not respond.
[quote]to which you replied (without proof) that there was loss of life, but no slaughter - pg 12
I replied with highlights of the Holomodur - pg 12[/quote]
Well, you had no proof either, so you again employ a double standard. As per usual, you have to arrange everything to fit your childish “the Soviets were evil!” paradigm that keeps you from having to think about things. Read Wheatcroft if you’re interested.
I did not try to move the discussion away. I actually elaborated on it, but then when I exposed your aforementioned hypocrisy regarding loss of life, you wisely chose to drop the subject.
Again, I ask you why I should be under the peculiar burden of proving my statements when you don’t have to prove yours, especially when mine match much better with the historical record than your flights of fancy.
Median and high estimates that were compiled by anti-communist historians with an axe to grind. Again, read Wheatcroft for a much better analysis. By the way, no historian with the respect of his peers believes those silly numbers.
No such consensus exists. And even if it did, it proves nothing, for reasons which I already enumerated, and which you probably ignored.
Wrong. I posted at least two links supporting me. Are you blind, or are you just lying?
“You ignoring my posts” does not equal “me dodging.”
finally you responded with some links that gave general conclusions about poverty - pg 13
Ha! Hard stats? You mean like these:
[quote]But even though I shouldn’t have to do this, here you go:
“The country began its transition with extensive hidden unemployment and at least one-tenth of its population below the then subsistence level (based on a ‘social minimum’ consumption basket). Since then, however, the number of poor households has risen, and by 1993 some 32 percent of the population was living below the revised official poverty line.”
http://www.worldbank.org/...o95/oct-ar2.htm
From the World Bank, no less. Not quite a hotbed of communism.
"RIOR TO THE DISSOLUTION of the Soviet Union in 1991, that countrys economic and social system worked in a practical sense meaning most people had a place to live and food to eat. Although standards of living were below those in the West, particularly in housing, daily life was predictable. The Soviet leadership was legitimately able to say that their form of socialism had succeeded in virtually eliminating the kind of poverty that existed in Czarist Russia. Russian citizens now live in different times. The countrys transformation to a more open economic system has created, temporarily at least, a large, new group of people in poverty.
http://www.census.gov/...bs/cenbr985.pdf
From the Department of Commerce. Again, a less-than-revolutionary body.
By the way, nice life expectancy increases thanks to the transition:
http://www.developmentandtrans…
You were saying…? [/quote]
I’m sorry, how does life expectancy falling sharply, while poverty increases sharply, all after capitalism comes in, prove how bad socialism is? Do I really have to explain to you how deluded your “thought” process is here?
To reiterate, I replied to your original question, and you ignored it. As that post points out the idiocy of your whole question, I will not answer it until you reformulate the question to make it intelligible and hopefully relevant.
Exactly.
[quote]I then challenged you to provide your best argument for the superiority of socialism (new direction) since no perfect example existed - pg 14
we’ve gone back and forth a few more posts with me asking for your best argument and you trying to avoid the questions - pg 14-15[/quote]
Far from it. I’ve posted about it at length. I’m trying to keep you on topic, as you desperately want to leave this one. Just admit you had no idea what you were talking about and we can talk about whatever you want.
Sorry Irish. You’ve made a gallant effort, but I’m not letting you dodge these questions.
are you guys debating the debate. get back to topic, the stuff that have beeen going on for some paiges now are starting to get boring.
I am going to put my last tought about this here.
first I think we should keep the debate about sovjet and the debate about the socialist-ideology separat.
Sovjet: Me and I guess ryan to agree with you irish that the sovjetunion was not a win from a humanitarian perspective, but as I sad earlyer, the sovjet union proved that it is possible to trancend from agricultural based economy to an industrial based economy without an marked-economy. Offcourse the transition was brutal, but so was the english transition to an industry based economy for the english worker or the irish farmer. Or what about the american economic transition to an industry based marked economy, the cotton created by the blackslaves in the south financed the american transition. So the sovjet transition doesnt equal that socialisme is brutal. its better to say that most historical evidence points to that a transition to an industry based economy is going to be brutal.
and as I have said before, Sovjet is no proof that my ideology( read: marxian-socialisme ) is going to fail. Because the sovjet experiment was in a backward country, the revolution had enemys from within russia and outside. marxian-socialisme+backward-country+lots of enemys = fail from a humanitarian perspective. Or we can put in another way: how is it possible to have workers democracy in a country with almost no workers?
to send the point home hard: socialisme is not “a priori” its “a propriori”, its meens you have to put it in the right context to make it work. If you put in a wrong context, it doesnt make sense. The same is tru about capitalisme, can you really see the point with an marked economy in a paleolitic society?
this is my final point about this, and I am going to stand by it.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Oh yeah, about the “underdevloped medical care” of socialism, “Life expectancy among Russian males fell from 64 years in the last year of socialism to 58 years in 2003 ( Wall Street Journal, 2/4/2004), below the level of Bangladesh and 16 years below Cuba’s 74 years (Cuban National Statistics 2002).”
[/quote]
Couldn’t care less about your argument but long life expectancy != great medical care. For instance the US’s high homicide rate decreases the US life expectancy by a few years. I suspect it is the same in Russia.
Ryan, yes, we are both correct, we’ve been arguing about Soviet history since you hijacked my discussion with Flo. And since you and Flo both hold that the USSR is not an answer to my original question - perfect example of socialism - therfore, it still stand that I have not seen your great argument for Socialism!
Flo, on the other hand, has been trying to make a case (Flo - sorry for letting our discussion get totally sidetracked) - while you have been doing nothing but acting like a spoiled little punk allowing name calling and ad homen attacks substitute for actual discussion - its no wonder I get all of these pm’s telling me you are not worth the time to try to actually discuss an idea.
Soooo, Ryan, once more - back to the original question - where’s your best argument for Socialism?
I’m sorry, it was you who turned on the snark when I corrected you (I’m not complaining, I expect it, but it does make your whining seem a little odd). Don’t pretend you’re a victim. And sorry, like I said, I’ve thoroughly detailed your errors. Until you address them, or admit that you were wrong, this discussion will go no further.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
I’m sorry, it was you who turned on the snark when I corrected you (I’m not complaining, I expect it, but it does make your whining seem a little odd). Don’t pretend you’re a victim. And sorry, like I said, I’ve thoroughly detailed your errors. Until you address them, or admit that you were wrong, this discussion will go no further.[/quote]
LOL - you have such a short memory, it was you who first resorted to the personal attacks . . . but who cares . . . can we please discuss the actual issue or are you afraid of the actual issue?
You have done no such thing, I gave my points and data, and you gave your points and data - you did not, however, refute either my data or points. So, at this point we each have our opinions of the history of the Soviet Union backed by what we each considered reasonable proof - we don’t agree with each other - so be it.
but again, if the Soviet Union is not, as you have said, even a poor example of socialism, then let’s get back to the original question:
What’s your best argument for socialism?
Or are you still lacking one?
Agreement or disagreement has nothing to do with it–your story is flatly contradicted by the facts. It’s pathetic that you’re still trying to pretend that somehow your or my opinion has anything to do with this. Again, man up and admit you were wrong. Everyone knows it anyway.
[quote]What’s your best argument for socialism?
Or are you still lacking one?[/quote]
I again point you to the search function. There have been many threads on it by now. We don’t need another one until you have digested the previous ones and come away with some new questions which were not adequately addressed.
Furthermore, allow me to repeat my first post to you:
So no, (again) contrary to your claim, I did not initiate the insults. You replied with:
[quote]Well, then, Mr. Enlightened-Socialist pray tell where this shining example, nay, paragon of socialism as a single political and economic system has existed and succeeded? Where is this grand utopia of which you so knowledgeably speak? We are all longing, even aching to witness such perfection in acion!! Oh, my poor deluded intellect to have even questioned the grand wisdom of your . . .can i stop this now?
Give me your example and not your rhetoric!! [/quote]
This would be the “original question” to which you would so desperately like to return, since you assume it would go better for you than the last discussion. I replied that I did not wish to discuss the matter with you since you were (and are) clearly not interested in any discussion, only in mindlessly denouncing socialism, and so what would be the point? Then you said this:
And I replied with a post which you ignored and still have not addressed:
So you see, to answer your “original question” would be to acknowledge that it was legitimate, when it was actually based on a logical fallacy. So if you want to discuss (I’m not sure why, you wouldn’t get anything out of it, as you still don’t even know what socialism is), my statement still stands: Reformulate your thoughts and ask an intelligible question.
Ryan, it absolutely amazes me that you can read the same thread that I am reading and come away with the conclusions that you do. Explains why you can still be a fan of socialism in this day and age. You did not prove any part of my position as “flat-out” wrong. All you’ve done is provide your pov and some links that you believe prove you point. That is not proving my data as false - that’s merely pontificating on your pov.
You start with the insults and have the temerity to accuse me of it when it’s right there - you even quoted yourself . . . amazing how you can miss the obvious . . .
You are right that was my “original” question and your response - well discussed and documented by this point is that there has never been a perfect example of socialism - to which i replied asking you to provide your best argument for socialism since no perfect example exists . . . and it is this question which apparently terrifies you . . .
We’ve moved past the question of perfect example because of your claim that no perfect example has ever existed and now we are at the point that if there has never been a “perfect example” of socialism (which proves my first statement correct), then what is that perfect argument for the supposed superiority of socialism?
does this question scare you that much? are you lacking a worthy argument? are you incapable of conversational progression? can you not connect the steps of a thread progression? are you actually ashamed of socialism? are you incapable of a purely logical construct in support of your position?
then where is your best argument for the superiority of socialism?
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
then where is your best argument for the superiority of socialism?[/quote]
He left it with one of his professors, that or he needs to consult with one of his professors to actually get the answer.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Ryan, it absolutely amazes me that you can read the same thread that I am reading and come away with the conclusions that you do. Explains why you can still be a fan of socialism in this day and age. You did not prove any part of my position as “flat-out” wrong. All you’ve done is provide your pov and some links that you believe prove you point. That is not proving my data as false - that’s merely pontificating on your pov.[/quote]
You said the Soviet government left the Russian people poorer than they were under the czar and poorer than they were under capitalism, and both claims were shown to be false. Spin it however you want.
The obvious?
That was my post to you. It doesn’t sound insulting to me. Unless you mean me telling you that you were mistaken, which is not an insult, but a simple fact. Please, for once, actually point something out, instead of vaguely hinting at things.
It does not terrify me at all. Far from it. The benefits of socialism are obvious, and whether you like it or not, socialistic policies will continue to be implemented to save capitalism from imploding. At this point, it is not socialism that requires a defense. As I said before, there are literally pages and pages in other threads where I and others discuss socialism in some detail. Please look them up if you are interested, but it is pointless to rehash an old discussion yet again because you are too lazy to look through a couple of pages. Or, if you have a specific question, ask it.
I’m not entirely sure which specific statement you’re referring to when you say your “first statement,” but seeing as all your statements are hobbled by your lack of knowledge regarding socialism, it is very doubtful that it was correct.
I suppose I am afraid of the discussion as much as you are afraid to use the search function.
In several threads. Look them up, or ask an intelligent question. But here is what I will not do: I will not respond to you simply saying, “Sell me on socialism, go.” The question is far too vague and a proper response to the general question would be many pages in length.
But why are you so terrified of simply asking a more specific question? Why does it scare you so much? Could it be that you simply have no idea what socialists actually think, and you’re afraid of further airing your ignorance?
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
then where is your best argument for the superiority of socialism?[/quote]
He left it with one of his professors, that or he needs to consult with one of his professors to actually get the answer.[/quote]
Which professor? Physics, math or engineering (I see the right wing simply can’t resist a good conspiracy theory to explain away their ineptitude)?
On another note, I am curious why you seem to think that being influenced by a professor is a bad thing. You get your opinions fed to you from Fox News. What’s the difference? Of course there is none, and the real reason you are insulting me is because I disagree with you. So kudos–you’re a good drone.
still don’t have that winning argument, eh?
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
then where is your best argument for the superiority of socialism?[/quote]
He left it with one of his professors, that or he needs to consult with one of his professors to actually get the answer.[/quote]
He apparently doesn’t have one, so continuous smokes screens and verbosity are his only tools . . .
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
then where is your best argument for the superiority of socialism?[/quote]
He left it with one of his professors, that or he needs to consult with one of his professors to actually get the answer.[/quote]
Which professor? Physics, math or engineering (I see the right wing simply can’t resist a good conspiracy theory to explain away their ineptitude)?
On another note, I am curious why you seem to think that being influenced by a professor is a bad thing. You get your opinions fed to you from Fox News. What’s the difference? Of course there is none, and the real reason you are insulting me is because I disagree with you. So kudos–you’re a good drone.
[/quote]
Just so you know, I cancelled my Cable. I decided that my family needed to spend more time together. I decided to think for myself instead of being “influenced by a professor” or a talking head.
Dogs learn good tricks from their masters. Maybe that is what you are Ryan. Nothing more than a dog that learns tricks. Did you see what I just did there. I took a page out of your book of debate. Call people names, so I never have to answer the question.
Well that’s great, I’m sure that cancels out years of programming.
And odd hypothesis, seeing as my arguments display a superior understanding compared to your childish taunts. Pray tell, who exactly is the master? Please, live up to your own standards, and answer the question: what evidence is there for this massive conspiracy theory of yours, other than that it makes you feel better with your erroneous opinions?
I sure did see it. I notice that people on this board frequently insult me, while blaming me for their rudeness. But by all means, continue to insult me. I know it’s much easier for you than thinking.
and still no argument . . .