Political spinoff from Church Unification

[Caid Ivik]

I am not sure if state can be from one side democratic, agreeing with human rights and from the other one can restrict creation of capital, individual initiative, concurence... That's fire with a water.

[Edric O]

Fair enough. The only reason why I pointed out the USSR's economic success was because I was getting really annoyed with people claiming that socialist economies were "weak" or that they were "failures". There were a lot of things wrong with the USSR, true, but the economy wasn't one of them.

But there's just one thing that I need to remind you about: The USSR's totalitarian system (and especially Stalin's brutal dictatorship) was actually very BAD for the economy. Stalin's purges often killed the most competent workers and economists, because Stalin was afraid they might plot against him. The KGB's role was to make sure that people were loyal to the government, not that they did their jobs. In fact, they often messed up things by promoting incompetent @$$-kissers rather than competent but more independent people. Also, the Party often set impossible goals for the economy, despite the protests of the economic planners.

And that's not even half of the whole story...

So, basically, the fact is that the socialist economy succeeded in spite of the totalitarian regime, not because of it.

[Edric O]

I am not sure if state can be from one side democratic, agreeing with human rights and from the other one can restrict creation of capital, individual initiative, concurence... That's fire with a water.

The state can be democratic and still restrict murder and theft, can't it?

The creation and the use of capital, as well as the private ownership over the means of production, is a form of theft. The people who own means of production can live off the work of their employees, while the employees have no choice but to accept the situation (as long as they don't own means of production of their own, they must get hired - in other words, they must sell their labour-power - in order to survive). This is what we call "capitalist exploitation".

[Caid Ivik]

Theft isn't stealing from yourself. I can say that even worse is when state commands other people to steal fruit of your work by high taxes. I would buy what I want, I don't need state to seek for my needs. And now say where capitalistic countries allow murders? In times of socialism (ok, let's say oligarchy with socialistic economy) we've allowed abortions for children and death penalty. After, we can say, capitalistic revolution, death penalty was banned and abortions strictly limited.

I don't know how can state be democratic and still allow theft and murder...

[Edric O]

The purpose of high taxes is to give back to the poor some of the money that was stolen from them through capitalist exploitation.

Is it wrong to steal money from the thieves and give it back to the people it was first stolen from?

[SurlyPIG]

Fair enough. The only reason why I pointed out the USSR's economic success was because I was getting really annoyed with people claiming that socialist economies were "weak" or that they were "failures". There were a lot of things wrong with the USSR, true, but the economy wasn't one of them.

You seem to be under the impression that the economy was a separate, untouchable entity completely independant of the government. In a state-run economy, the two are one in the same.

But there's just one thing that I need to remind you about: The USSR's totalitarian system (and especially Stalin's brutal dictatorship) was actually very BAD for the economy. Stalin's purges often killed the most competent workers and economists, because Stalin was afraid they might plot against him. The KGB's role was to make sure that people were loyal to the government, not that they did their jobs. In fact, they often messed up things by promoting incompetent @$$-kissers rather than competent but more independent people. Also, the Party often set impossible goals for the economy, despite the protests of the economic planners.

And that's not even half of the whole story...

You wish. For one, there's no such thing as a competant economic planner. Second, you were obviously lied to about the KGB and the role they played (which is not surprising, given the places where you get your information about Communism). Loyalty to the government was loyalty to the economy. If you were a 'carreer floater' in the USSR, or tried to get out of working entirely, the KGB would pay you a visit. This was commonplace. They were the thugs for the government's interests, economy included.

So, basically, the fact is that the socialist economy succeeded in spite of the totalitarian regime, not because of it.

LOL. Sorry, but I just have to laugh at that. ;D

[Edric O]

You seem to be under the impression that the economy was a separate, untouchable entity completely independant of the government. In a state-run economy, the two are one in the same.

And you seem to be under the impression that "the government" is some sort of godlike entity with a single supermind. Well, I've got news for you: The government is composed of many ministries and departments, and each of those is composed on many individual persons. They are far from "inseparable". On the contrary, they enjoy a very high degree of autonomy. The Ministry of Education has no reason to poke into the business of the Ministry of Agriculture, for example.

The Soviet economy was handled by certain government departments, while the social and political issues were handled by others. You can't just lump them all together and blame the economists for what the KGB did.

You wish. For one, there's no such thing as a competant economic planner. Second, you were obviously lied to about the KGB and the role they played (which is not surprising, given the places where you get your information about Communism). Loyalty to the government was loyalty to the economy. If you were a 'carreer floater' in the USSR, or tried to get out of working entirely, the KGB would pay you a visit. This was commonplace. They were the thugs for the government's interests, economy included.

Hmmm, which one of us actually lived in that system, again? Which one of us can simply ask his parents and relatives about the way things worked back then? Remember who you're talking to, Ace.

As a Romanian, I think my informations on stalinism are far more accurate than anything you can come up with.

No such thing as a competent economic planner, eh? Then how exactly do you explain the USSR's amazing economic growth? If they were so incompetent, how did they manage to achieve the fastest economic growth rate ever recorded in history?

The KGB (just like the Securitate, and all other political police) had a habit of "paying a visit" to anyone who went against government orders, no matter if the reasons were social or economic. You are right about that. But that doesn't change the fact that they did far more harm than good to the economy. Like I said in my previous post, the KGB ensured that people got promoted for political reasons rather than for actual merits. The result was that incompetent people were put into key positions, which is extremely bad for any economy.

Don't forget that I utterly despise the stalinist totalitarian regime, and I have already posted some time ago a topic in which I listed the crimes of Stalin. However, I try to look at things in an objective manner. Stalin and his system are guilty of a lot of crimes, but that doesn't change the fact that they did some things right. The economy is one of those things. And if the system hadn't been totalitarian, the socialist economy would have done even better.

[SurlyPIG]

And you seem to be under the impression that "the government" is some sort of godlike entity with a single supermind. Well, I've got news for you: The government is composed of many ministries and departments, and each of those is composed on many individual persons. They are far from "inseparable". On the contrary, they enjoy a very high degree of autonomy. The Ministry of Education has no reason to poke into the business of the Ministry of Agriculture, for example.

The Soviet economy was handled by certain government departments, while the social and political issues were handled by others. You can't just lump them all together and blame the economists for what the KGB did.

I'm not saying the economic planners were the ones responsible for the brutality of the government, I'm saying the brutality of the government did the planners a huge favour by intimidating people into obedience to the planners that would never be achieved in a free society. And in the USSR, the government WAS godlike in its power.

Hmmm, which one of us actually lived in that system, again? Which one of us can simply ask his parents and relatives about the way things worked back then? Remember who you're talking to, Ace.

As a Romanian, I think my informations on stalinism are far more accurate than anything you can come up with.

And how many of those people had their families stolen from them? I have no need to ask anyone about the true nature of Stalinism. All I have to do is look through my grandfather's photo albums at all of our relatives that were killed by the Soviet regime. My grandfather was youngest of five kids on a Ukranian farm. His mother had one more on the way when she was killed by the Reds. Only he and one of his sisters lived through the "purges", and that includes four families of cousins, aunts, and uncles. Needless to say, obedience does not run in my family.

No such thing as a competent economic planner, eh? Then how exactly do you explain the USSR's amazing economic growth? If they were so incompetent, how did they manage to achieve the fastest economic growth rate ever recorded in history?

For the same reason that slavemasters in the American South were able to work their slaves harder than any other cotton farmer had been able to work before. They had whips. The advancement of the few at the cost of the rest is all it was.

The KGB (just like the Securitate, and all other political police) had a habit of "paying a visit" to anyone who went against government orders, no matter if the reasons were social or economic. You are right about that. But that doesn't change the fact that they did far more harm than good to the economy. Like I said in my previous post, the KGB ensured that people got promoted for political reasons rather than for actual merits. The result was that incompetent people were put into key positions, which is extremely bad for any economy.

Of course the whip harms the slaves, but it does not do so to the ones holding it. And the ones holding the whip are the ones you are judging the success of.

. . . if the system hadn't been totalitarian, the socialist economy would have done even better.

That's your opinion. It is not shared by most economists and historians.

[Edric O]

I'm not saying the economic planners were the ones responsible for the brutality of the government, I'm saying the brutality of the government did the planners a huge favour by intimidating people into obedience to the planners that would never be achieved in a free society. And in the USSR, the government WAS godlike in its power.

Besides intimidating people, the brutality of the government was also breeding incompetence and making it very hard for the planners to do their job properly. Not exactly what I would call a "favour" to the economy.

But you're right about one thing: Such obedience would never be achieved in a free society. And it shouldn't be achieved. ALL AUTHORITY MUST BE QUESTIONED.

In a free society, people would follow the economic plan because they get rewarded for doing a good job, not because they are afraid of anything.

And how many of those people had their families stolen from them? I have no need to ask anyone about the true nature of Stalinism. All I have to do is look through my grandfather's photo albums at all of our relatives that were killed by the Soviet regime. My grandfather was youngest of five kids on a Ukranian farm. His mother had one more on the way when she was killed by the Reds. Only he and one of his sisters lived through the "purges", and that includes four families of cousins, aunts, and uncles. Needless to say, obedience does not run in my family.

I'm so sorry... :( I never knew that you had family members killed by the stalinists.

But, like I said, Stalin was a filthy murderer, a traitor and a selfish bastard. He killed millions of innocent people, and also thousands of true communists who refused to obey him (including many of his old comrades from the 1917 revolution). I'm sure that you hate him far more than I do (since you actually lost family to his purges), but you shouldn't forget that I hate him too. And so do all of my communist comrades.

For the same reason that slavemasters in the American South were able to work their slaves harder than any other cotton farmer had been able to work before. They had whips. The advancement of the few at the cost of the rest is all it was.

Of course the whip harms the slaves, but it does not do so to the ones holding it. And the ones holding the whip are the ones you are judging the success of.

Then again, the slavemasters of the American South didn't provide their slaves with ever-increasing standards of healthcare and education, or with affordable cars, or with cheap housing, or with any of the other things that the average Russians got for the first time as a result of the planned economy.

Unfortunetaly, the totalitarian regime also killed millions of people, so that the success of the economy pales in comparison. But if the people had been the ones controlling the government (as any real socialist system requires), then all those deaths wouldn't have happened.

That's your opinion. It is not shared by most economists and historians.

Actually, most economists and historians don't think about "what-if" scenarios. They analyze what happened, not what could have happened.

[Caid Ivik]

I want to see how you would question authority, if it takes all moral laws under the primary target of reaching socialistic utopy. If something was shared by Stalin and Marx (exc.symbols and economy), it was surely motto "sacrifices are needed for success".

For that we had StB, Russia KGB, or Romania its Securitate. Like Germans were burning Jews to gain access to their wealth, communists sacrificed some "state's enemies" causing unrests against the "true scientifical way" - or we can call it a "plan". To be sure, stealing wealth from kulaks and capitalists is usual for revolution, so we don't need to search for other common points with the gray-black system.

Inside a strictly planned system of isolated states, we had no right for initiative, just to prevent any unexpected result on five-year plan. As well as no right to thank to God for fruit of our work (Party gave it to us, not He!). Other restrictions I don't have to bring up again. We made so many sacrifices, and for what? Compare Trabant to early VW Golf, PMD-85 to Atari or cleaness of i.e.romanian and french villages. And as we can be sure, that more restrictions and intimidating lead for higher productivity, without them it would be even worse!

The purpose of high taxes is to give back to the poor some of the money that was stolen from them through capitalist exploitation.

Is it wrong to steal money from the thieves and give it back to the people it was first stolen from?

People are working for someone, so from your materialistic view (if your stay with 2nd and 3rd part of Capital), they sell work for wage given by their employer. Their work, altough I don't think "work" itself is value (product is valuable, employee is payed for his participation on its creation), is countervalued by payment. And state is parasiting on this. Of course, some are needed for security, infrastructure, education and some other basical things, but for what is that bureaucratic juggernaut, which hyenistically searches for succesful businessmen because they are a good source of money, which can be used for special awards, if they are plenty?