This is why I love French workers

[chatfsh]

Strange that a diligent effort towards democracy might involve the mass murder of anyone who you even have a remote suspicion of being against you....

Not to say that I will dismiss what you point to out of hand. I'll look into it granted time and energy.

Let

[Sneakgab]

I'm not saying we can't have democratic villains. It is that killing off any opposition is in itself undemocratic.

Well, I suppose that TECHNICALLY (is there anywhere on this site that gives the text codes? I tire of using capitals rather than italics... and yes, I am laughably computer inept. Laugh as you please :D), you can have a democracy with elections where you dissuade possible opposition participants via much murder. Perhaps the important thing is that the democracy gets it's job done: people choosing who they like.

[Dante]

The letter of the law means nothing without adherence to the spirit. That is why Iran is not, currently, democratic. If having elections was enough to qualify a country's democratic ideals, Saddam Hussein would still be in power. With over 90% of the vote, no less.

*chuckle*

Edit: Sneakgab, the FAQ is here.

[Sneakgab]

''The letter of the law means nothing without adherence to the spirit.''

The point of Merchant Of Venice yes?

''Edit: Sneakgab, the FAQ is here.''

Thank you very much (and without mockery no less :D)

[Edric O]

Let

[Edric O]

I have addressed your points about Stalin and democracy in the USSR in my previous post, so now I will focus on your other points:

Then I must question whether or not you understand the proper definition of capitalism. You commonly refer to the US as capitalist country despite the fact that the economic system does not operate under a free market environment, since a free market has absolutely no government interference or involvement.

That is not my definition of capitalism, nor the Marxist definition of capitalism, nor the definition of capitalism used by most people and dictionaries (yes, I know you used the same kind of argument about communism and I rejected it; I'll get back to this further down). The Marxist definition of capitalism rests on five elements:

1. Private ownership of the means of production, or at least private ownership of the majority of the means of production.

2. The majority of the means of production can be bought and sold on the market. (note: in feudalism, the majority of the means of production were not up for sale and the normal method of obtaining them was by inheritance)

3. Production for the market. In capitalism, most goods and services are produced for sale on the market, not for personal use or distribution by non-market methods. (note: in feudalism most goods were produced for personal use, and in socialism they will be produced for distribution by non-market methods)

4. Dependence on the market for survival. In capitalism, most people have to buy food and the other things they need in order to live, rather than producing those things themselves.

5. A labour market. In capitalism, there is a market for labour. Workers provide the supply, capitalists provide the demand, and the wage is determined by market forces.

None of these elements have anything to do with regulations or government interference. Putting some limits on the operation of the market is not un-capitalist, just like putting some limits on the level of economic equality is not un-socialist.

Of course, you may disagree with this definition of capitalism. Fair enough. "Capitalism", just like "socialism", is only a word. The point is that when I speak against "capitalism", I speak against a system defined by the five elements above. If you don't think that's capitalism, feel free to refer to it by another name.

Likewise, if there is a system that you call capitalism but which does NOT meet the five conditions above, then I am not criticizing that system when I criticize "capitalism".

If you want everyone to stop referring to them as socialist, then you must cease referring to the US as capitalist. Fair is fair.

I call the US system capitalism mainly because the majority of its advocates call it capitalism. If those advocates all vanished (as happened to the advocates of the Soviet system), and the only remaining advocates of "capitalism" insisted that the current US system is not capitalist (like present communists insist that the USSR was not socialist or communist), then I would change my language accordingly.

But the fact is, all people who call themselves advocates of capitalism are also great admirers (sometimes to the point of quasi-religious devotion) of the present economic system of the United States. If there were people who advocated "capitalism" but divorced it from support for the United States, then - at least in conversations with those people - I would not refer to the US system as capitalist.

The source of the quote was a paper entitled

[chatfsh]

Sure. However, if we have a country that is ostensibly democratic and yet has a leader that kills millions of people and we observe no mention of this - let alone criticism of it - in that country's media and political institutions, shouldn't this give us serious reason to doubt that any kind of democracy operates in that country? I mean, surely some elected official somewhere would oppose the murderous leader if the country was democratic!

Of course there was a show of free elections. The Soviet Union claimed to be socialist. They knew that socialism requires democracy. So, in order to support their claim to be socialist, they had to pretend to hold free elections.

My points have been that 1) democracy was the state governmental system as enshrined within the Soviet constitution, and 2) after Stalin

[Dante]

So in summary, the USSR was essentially democratic in nature.

...That's how Stalin ruled for thirty one years, is it? By popular vote? A socialist country, in which the people have ultimate control over anything their leader does, was responsible for the Great Terror, for Yezhovschina? Have you even read Animal Farm? So you argued yourself into a corner, get over it and admit a mistake, don't just keep digging.

Stalin set up and won elections. Saddam Hussein set up and won elections. The USA invaded a democratic country! Fine champions of freedom now, aren't you? Removing a democratically elected leader, for shame.

[Edric O]

My points have been that 1) democracy was the state governmental system as enshrined within the Soviet constitution,

True, without a doubt. The Soviet Constitution was democratic and socialist. As I've said before, if the Soviet Constitution had actually been respected, the Soviet Union would have been a socialist country.

So, would it be fair to say that our disagreement now hinges on whether the Soviet government actually respected its constitution, with you saying that it did and therefore the USSR was socialist, and me saying that it didn't and therefore the USSR was not socialist?

and 2) after Stalin

[Edric O]

Time for another reply to Anathema:

No, I don't think that such an experiment is worth a try. I don't think it's ethical to plunge one or two generations in total misery in the hopes of benefitting their grand(-grand)children.

Of course. However, no one talked about plunging one or two generations in total misery. Would it be ethical to slightly reduce the quality of life of one or two generations in the hopes of benefiting their grand(-grand)children? Maybe. It depends on what kind of reduction we're talking about, what payoff we expect in the future, what the risks are, and so on.

And that's regardless of the conclusion in hindsight that most of the eastern European countries were actually worse off than otherwise.

What on Earth led you to that conclusion? There are plenty of capitalist countries much worse off than Eastern Europe ever was during the stalinist era. If Eastern Europe had been capitalist during 1945-1990, what makes you think it would have ended up like Western Europe and not like South America, for example?

Not to mention that any talk of such "alternatives" is ahistorical. Given that the Allies won WW2, there was absolutely no way to avoid Eastern Europe turning stalinist. Eastern Europe could have remained capitalist only if (a) the Nazis won the war, or (b) the war never happened.

I don't think scenario (a) could have possibly led to a better world for anyone. As for scenario (b), that would require massive changes in world history - so massive that there is no way to predict what the results might have been. A world without WW2 might be better than this world, or it might be a nuclear wasteland. We cannot know.

I think you misunderstood me, but that's my own fault. By "inconsequential" I didn't mean insignificant. Detached would be a better word.

I meant to say that you wouldn't be able to have the same level of industrial growth that Stalin wanted without causing famines, and I believe that this was taken into account beforehand.

Yes, it is true that the huge rate of economic growth in the USSR in the 1930s was achieved in part by taking away peasants' crops in order to accumulate the capital necessary for rapid industrialization. However, Stalin went too far. He took away so much food that peasants starved to death. And since dead people can't work, a famine always hurts the economy. The maximum level of economic growth could have been achieved by taking away most of the peasants' crops but leaving them enough to be able to survive and continue working (so they could produce more crops next year). By killing people, Stalin reduced his labour force and thus achieved less growth than he could have achieved by overworking people without killing them.

Arguably, a more sane leader could have settled for a more modest rate of growth while keeping people alive (let's keep the prospect of a German invasion out of consideration)

Yes, precisely. The Soviet government could have avoided the famines and achieved even greater economic growth by overworking people without killing them. OR it could have settled for a lower level of growth, in order to treat its workers and peasants more humanely (personally, I'd prefer this second option). Or it could have done something else entirely...

The point is, all these options were available within the existing Soviet system. The system did not choose between them; Stalin did. So the responsibility for that choice lies with Stalin, not with the Soviet system.

But you'd still have problems with getting farmers to give up their land. Especially because they were never asked about their opinion - they never got to vote on collectivisation, not during the revolution nor after that. Even if Stalin's hypothetical replacement would try to accomplish collectivisation more gradually, I don't see how he could do without intimidation and collective punishment. Especially with the prospect of Ukrainian seperatism.

Some countries using the Soviet economic system - Poland, for example - never collectivized agriculture at all. So, that option was also available within the system.

Others collectivized agriculture much more slowly, using only financial and political pressure, without physical violence.

Obviously advertising is meant to influence your wishes. But more fundamentally, it's meant to tell people that the product in question exists. If you don't know that something exists, how can you make a choice?

You can inform people of the existence of a product through a simple catalog. You don't need advertising for that.

Another angle is that I generally trust people to make their own choices.

It's not that simple. Even perfectly intelligent, perfectly rational people making choices in their own best interests can sometimes end up producing the worst possible outcome, that they are all trying to avoid. Are you familiar with Prisoner's Dilemma, and game theory in general?

Kids are obviously an exception but it's up to their parents to see that they don't waste their money (or worse, borrow it) buying the latest Nokia phone or whatever.

Parents should not have to constantly fight off external attempts to get their children to act irresponsibly. Such attempts should be illegal.

Children accidentally picking up bad behaviour from what they observe around them is one thing. Advertising intentionally designed to teach children bad behaviour (e.g. "buy everything you see on TV") is quite another.

They have improved steadily for the last decade or so, partly by specialising. If you discount the times when they put toxins in milk powder or lead paint on children toys (wich is a pretty big IF), Chinese products generally have a good price-quality ballance. Wich is why they manage to export so much.

The Soviets traded mainly with other COMECON countries, wich produced stuff wich was barely better, if at all.

Chinese products have a good price-quality balance according to their trade partners. Soviet products also had a good price-quality balance according to their trade partners. I still don't see the difference. Yes, the Soviets traded mainly within COMECON. So what?

If I recall correctly importing western consumer goods was illegal (many aparatchiks got around this by getting them through finland at high prices), not because of chauvenism but because of the very real danger that people would wake up and realize that all domesticly produced stuff was crap.

Umm, Western consumer goods were also much more expensive. That was my point. Yes, Soviet consumer goods were crap, but they were very cheap crap. And importing Western goods wasn't illegal. The government had a monopoly on foreign trade and could import and export whatever it wanted. It simply chose not to import Western consumer goods. This was mainly because they refused to admit that they were sacrificing quality for lower cost, and wanted to pretend that their domestic goods were both cheap and high-quality. It was propaganda taken too far - and, of course, no one believed it.

There was also the real concern of not being overly dependent on trade with capitalist countries. Protectionism makes strategic sense when used to keep your economy separated from the economies of potential enemy countries.

No, I won't deny that. But the fact that there are still people who collect and repair trabant cars doesn't mean that it was a good product, or that it would ever have enjoyed wide popularity if the east Germans had more to chose from.

That is probably true. My point, however, is that people are never given a choice between all possible alternatives, regardless of the economic system, and capitalism does not necessarily produce the goods wanted or needed by the majority of people any more than the Soviet system did.

I was thinking more about higher-up bureaucrats mostly. They, and politicians, are technically civilians since neither is military. But you can argue that both are responsible for "crimes" committed by a regime. Wich is not the case for anyone not involved in governing the country.

Yes, but I never suggested that capitalists should be held responsible for government decisions that they had nothing to do with. I suggested that capitalists should be held responsible for exploiting their own workers within the companies they control.

[chatfsh]

So, would it be fair to say that our disagreement now hinges on whether the Soviet government actually respected its constitution, with you saying that it did and therefore the USSR was socialist, and me saying that it didn't and therefore the USSR was not socialist?

Pretty much, but to state my position a little more accurately, I would clarify that the Soviet government made a show of respecting its constitution by implementing democratic reforms requiring full elections with multiple candidates and secret ballots.

Permit me to use a brief illustration to make my point:  Suppose a couple gets legally married, holds the big wedding ceremony replete with all the traditional customs and rituals; then after the honeymoon, returns to their new home where they immediately proceed to sleep in separate bedrooms, barely ever speak to one another and regularly engage in extramarital affairs and other abuses

[Sneakgab]

''My point here is that this situation creates a very gray area where there is no black and white answer.  A valid argument could be made for both sides.''

Not sure it is grey. It was democratic in technicality but not in spirit. To be democratic in spirit, there must be REAL choice. Now, it being democratic in technicality but not in spirit was pretty much your point, but what I doubt is that a valid argument could be made that there was true democracy in the SU. You did not specify what the argument was for exactly, but if not an argument for true democracy in the SU, then an argument for what? Technical democracy?

The ''modern-day-socialists'' title would be a bit off because as I showed earlier Marx himself insisted on workers democracy, and as one would imagine, he is the most ancient Marxist.

Also, when the word ''socialist'' is used people often think about mere socialist reformers only seeking mild reforms. If your going to invent a new word, it may as well be something that cannot be accidentally taken for something.

However, Marxism as originally intended is what the Marxists follow. There has been no change in the fundamentals. Changing the word might be a bad idea for the Marxists. You could say they would dissociate themselves from the SU, but the word used for the SU is almost always ''communist''. In fact, that may have some influence in using the term Marxism instead; as soon as you use the word communism people won't listen to such ''crazy talk'''. When you use the word Marxism, they often go: Whats that?. What often proceeds is quite comical sometimes: You explain what it is and from their reaction you take it they have never heard of a system, then often proceed to comment like that sounds like a pretty interesting and promising idea worthy of consideration (and these are the same people who would have given you a funny look at the mention of communism, because to them that means SU). So the usefulness in disassociation might not be too great. In addition to that there are reasons not to: If such a name change occurred, there would be an immediate assault on Marxists based on a supposed attempt to divorce themselves from the SU. It would also give them a ''insignificant ridiculous new age party'' feel.

(edit)

Although, now that I look again, I must admit that your proposed name would not have that feel. Your specific proposal might have a nice new modern reasonably type of feel to it. That last bit about the ''new age party'' feel would be for something like some special new term for it, as opposed to this modification. There would still be the problem of accusations of changing the name just for trying to disassociate Marxism from the SU. And of course, it would be better as Modern Socialists not Modern Day Socialists, which would sound silly. Of course, your point wasn't to create a good new name though, but just to suggest that the name take into account characteristics (such as present day, though I will re-iterate that would incorrectly suggest that Marxism was ever different)

[chatfsh]

We could always call it Marxism-Edricism.  Catchy, no?

[Anathema]

Of course. However, no one talked about plunging one or two generations in total misery. Would it be ethical to slightly reduce the quality of life of one or two generations in the hopes of benefiting their grand(-grand)children? Maybe. It depends on what kind of reduction we're talking about, what payoff we expect in the future, what the risks are, and so on.

Maybe you do not approve, but that's effectively what happened in the Soviet Union. Of course it was Stalin's idea to push for rapid industrialisation and moreover there was a civil war.

But still, I don't see how a revolution in a western country could possibly avoid a sharp drop in quality of life for everyone. And the fact that many people, if not the majority, would resist any attempt to grab power outside the established democratic framework doesn't bode well for internal stability.

What on Earth led you to that conclusion? There are plenty of capitalist countries much worse off than Eastern Europe ever was during the stalinist era. If Eastern Europe had been capitalist during 1945-1990, what makes you think it would have ended up like Western Europe and not like South America, for example?

Because eastern Europe has always been more developed then south America. It's obvious that western countries were more developed and more wealthy in 1990 and still are, but in the first half of the 20th century that was not the case. Spain, Italy, and Ireland to name a few hadn't nearly reached the level of industrialisation of the "great powers".

To make it even more obvious, look at the sharp differences between west and east Germany. Or at Finland - it wasn't formally alligned to either bloc and it didn't receive Marshall aid, but it was a free market economy. It obviously took a beating when the Soviet Union (it's most important trading partner) collapsed, but before that it was far wealthier than the eastern bloc countries and it recovered quickly.

Not to mention that any talk of such "alternatives" is ahistorical. Given that the Allies won WW2, there was absolutely no way to avoid Eastern Europe turning stalinist. Eastern Europe could have remained capitalist only if (a) the Nazis won the war, or (b) the war never happened.

While true, this doesn't mean that we can't draw conclusions about the radically different developments in eastern and western Europe. There's nothing inherent in eastern European countries that would make them less fit to prosper in a free market economy than Spain or Italy.

Yes, it is true that the huge rate of economic growth in the USSR in the 1930s was achieved in part by taking away peasants' crops in order to accumulate the capital necessary for rapid industrialization. However, Stalin went too far. He took away so much food that peasants starved to death. And since dead people can't work, a famine always hurts the economy. The maximum level of economic growth could have been achieved by taking away most of the peasants' crops but leaving them enough to be able to survive and continue working (so they could produce more crops next year). By killing people, Stalin reduced his labour force and thus achieved less growth than he could have achieved by overworking people without killing them.

Besides its supposed equity, a big rationale for collectivisation was scale advantage. That would either mean that farmers would have to move to urban areas en masse, or that they would have to be forcibly disposed of. Either way they weren't needed.

It's not irrational per se - accompanied with mechanisation, you definitely need less people to tend to farms.

The point is, all these options were available within the existing Soviet system. The system did not choose between them; Stalin did. So the responsibility for that choice lies with Stalin, not with the Soviet system.

Any talk of such alternatives is ahistorical  ;)

In western economies people are motivated to work because of their paycheck. In the Soviet Union - before, during and after Stalin - people were motivated to work by intimidation and propaganda. I know wich I prefer.

Some countries using the Soviet economic system - Poland, for example - never collectivized agriculture at all. So, that option was also available within the system.

Others collectivized agriculture much more slowly, using only financial and political pressure, without physical violence.

Besides the DDR and the Soviet Union I know little about the eastern bloc. But this wiki states that collectivisation in Poland was a failure, not that it wasn't tried.

As for the other countries, I think that after Hungary in 1956 and Chzechoslovakia in 1968 people didn't feel inclined to challenge their respective (Soviet backed) governments. So it's still a matter of coercion and opression.

You can inform people of the existence of a product through a simple catalog. You don't need advertising for that.

I've always thought of catalogs as a means of advertising. Or do you mean catalogs made by third parties, like consumer organisations?

It's not that simple. Even perfectly intelligent, perfectly rational people making choices in their own best interests can sometimes end up producing the worst possible outcome, that they are all trying to avoid. Are you familiar with Prisoner's Dilemma, and game theory in general?

I've read about game theory (including the prisoner's dillema) for a university course of Economy & Law, but that was a long time ago. But yes, I'm aware that people don't always act in their best interests.

Saying that you "trust" someone to do something implies that you realize this is not necessarily the case. I'd rather have people make their own choices than have them made by a patronising government. Misleading commercials can plausibly cause a great deal of harm, but many countries (mine in particular) already have very strict regulations in that regard.

I'm rather sleepy now, so I'll reply to the rest tomorrow.

EDIT: It's tomorrow!

Parents should not have to constantly fight off external attempts to get their children to act irresponsibly. Such attempts should be illegal.

Children accidentally picking up bad behaviour from what they observe around them is one thing. Advertising intentionally designed to teach children bad behaviour (e.g. "buy everything you see on TV") is quite another.

Sorry, but in my experience (I've been a volunteer for Scouting for years) the kids wich act the most "irresponsibly" generally have parents who either can't or won't see anything wrong with their behaviour. Some of them simply don't have a clue.

I won't say that media and advertising can't have an adverse effect on children's behaviour because it's clear that it can. But in many cases it's simply a convenient scapegoat for bad parenting, IMHO.

Nevertheless I do think that advertising and marketing aimed at children should be held to higher standards. For adults, I draw the line at falsehood and misleading statements. Beyond that, I don't see why companies shouldn't be allowed to appeal to stupid and/or impressionable people.

Chinese products have a good price-quality balance according to their trade partners. Soviet products also had a good price-quality balance according to their trade partners. I still don't see the difference. Yes, the Soviets traded mainly within COMECON. So what?

Umm, Western consumer goods were also much more expensive. That was my point. Yes, Soviet consumer goods were crap, but they were very cheap crap. And importing Western goods wasn't illegal. The government had a monopoly on foreign trade and could import and export whatever it wanted. It simply chose not to import Western consumer goods. This was mainly because they refused to admit that they were sacrificing quality for lower cost, and wanted to pretend that their domestic goods were both cheap and high-quality. It was propaganda taken too far - and, of course, no one believed it.

There was also the real concern of not being overly dependent on trade with capitalist countries. Protectionism makes strategic sense when used to keep your economy separated from the economies of potential enemy countries.

I vaguely remember that it was illegal for the few east Germans who ever got permission to travel to the west to bring anything with them when they returned. But I can't even remember where I read or heard it, so never mind.

That is probably true. My point, however, is that people are never given a choice between all possible alternatives, regardless of the economic system, and capitalism does not necessarily produce the goods wanted or needed by the majority of people any more than the Soviet system did.

If something is potentially very popular but not produced by anybody, it's either:

1) illegal

2) expensive to produce, and by extension, too expensive for anyone to buy

That's all there is to it, really. If an American or a European company thought that they could make huge profits by selling imitations of eastern designs they would have done so.

I don't claim that capitalism seamlessly caters for the wants or needs of the people, but it certainly did a better job than soviet-style economies did. The Trabant car was comparable to western cars about 40/50 years ago. The reason why it's such an icon of the DDR's failure is because they never replaced them with anything better, and because they never managed to provide enough to meet demands.

[Sneakgab]

''Maybe you do not approve, but that's effectively what happened in the Soviet Union. Of course it was Stalin's idea to push for rapid industrialisation and moreover there was a civil war.''

It may be true that the rapid industrialization wasn't worth it, but the same cannot neccessarily be said for A SU without industrialization.

''But still, I don't see how a revolution in a western country could possibly avoid a sharp drop in quality of life for everyone. And the fact that many people, if not the majority, would resist any attempt to grab power outside the established democratic framework doesn't bode well for internal stability.''

Well, a revolution itself always involves damage and whatnot of course, and obviously any revolution typically requires majority support to succeed let alone to succeed with little bloodshed and loss of stability (on the topic of Russia, remember that it was feudal initially, so achieving capitalism ALSO would have required a revolution) so. However, that an attempt at socialism would be WORSE in a western country is the OPPOSITE of true. Since the industrialization is already done, you wouldn't see anything like what happened in the SU. Lenin (and basically all the Marxists) had reason to think socialism could only take place in an already industrialized country. In an un-industrialized country such as Russia, they basically thought that CAPITALISM would GENERALLY be better. So no wonder if some capitalist countries outperformed some socialist countries then. If that was enough to damn socialism as useless, then why would Lenin and others support it in the first place, suspecting it to be true?

Take note of that GENERALLY. I'll be getting back that to later.

One more thing for this topic: Democracy was also once an ''experiment'', as was ''capitalism''. I doubt you think they weren't worth it. Obviously they didn't involve guaranteed suffering for the current generation like Stalin's rapid industrialization, but neither does socialism.

''Because eastern Europe has always been more developed then south America. ''

Erm... And what are we supposed to conclude from that? In other words, they were more developed when they were communist and one was capitalist, and they were more developed when both were fuedal or under colonial rule. If anything, that would seem to suggest that communism is better. Of course, one could point to the ''head start'' (from the time when they were BOTH free from fuedalism and colonial rule) the Eastern countries had (I wonder how much better of they were initially after WW 1 and WW 2, as opposed to the recently liberated South American countries (if they were liberated at the time).

''Because eastern Europe has always been more developed then south America. It's obvious that western countries were more developed and more wealthy in 1990 and still are, but in the first half of the 20th century that was not the case. Spain, Italy, and Ireland to name a few hadn't nearly reached the level of industrialisation of the "great powers".

To make it even more obvious, look at the sharp differences between west and east Germany. Or at Finland - it wasn't formally alligned to either bloc and it didn't receive Marshall aid, but it was a free market economy. It obviously took a beating when the Soviet Union (it's most important trading partner) collapsed, but before that it was far wealthier than the eastern bloc countries and it recovered quickly.''

Why do you capitalism supporters seem to not realize that the world (close to completely capitalist) is not just Western Europe and the USA? Maybe because if your well off enough to be posting on an internet forum, your obviously from the western countries and therefore those apparently are the only ones that come to mind. About half of the world lives in poverty usually with no social care (it was even worse back then). With the world being virtually entire capitalist, we can approximate that half of the world then iswas worse off than the ''socialist'' countries back thennow where even if the people make 0$ they are better off with their social care. And that's not even real socialism. And those were (EDIT) NOT (EDIT) even attempts in  industrialized countries as the Marxists intended (EDIT: For feck's sake, that's the second time I've accidentally said the EXACT OPPOSITE of what I mean). And those countries were almost completely isolated. The Marxists also believedbelieve that socialism in (EDIT) ONE (EDIT) country  is impossible (DAMMIT. Another mistake making the sentence meaningless). So in these cases, socialism would be considered doubly impossible by them. But let's forget about attempting socialism as intended by the Marxists and compare the results of the attempt that created the SU and the results of capitalism. Half of the capitalist world wasis poverty stricken (in terms of population. In terms of countries, it's probably more than half considering the large number of sh!tty little African and Eastern European countries). By that consideration (simply looking at results and ignoring the situation which you do here) Russia and the other Eastern European countries were at least as likely to end up as Zimbabwes under capitalism as Spains, Italies, and Irelands. Those countries were fortunate. Virtually all of Africa was not. Also, after the collapse of the SU, those countries are generally worse off than ever (definitely in the case of the SU). It's been some time since the collapse of the SU, and they show no signs of going the way of Spain or Italy.

Speaking about West Germany and East Germany specifically, it is no surprise that the West did better than the East, as while they received aid, the East had their machinery and resources diverted to the rest of the SU.

Don't ask me about Finland though. I don't know anything about them.

''While true, this doesn't mean that we can't draw conclusions about the radically different developments in eastern and western Europe. There's nothing inherent in eastern European countries that would make them less fit to prosper in a free market economy than Spain or Italy.''

Yes... isn't that true. That is, that there is nothing inherent in Eastern European countries (probably explains Finland). There is also nothing inherent in African countries that makes them sh!t holes. Africa was rich in resources, the colonialists didn't take the bother for fun. Yes, there is nothing inherent about their GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION. There is something about their SITUATION though, that made them $h!t holes while some countries prospered. That is, their exploitation by wealthier countries and their economic disadvantage. Guess what, Africa is ALWAYS going to be mostly a $h!t hole as long as capitalism is the dominant system in the world. The market fairy isn't going to change a thing for them. By the way: Spain was a major colonialist prior to WW 1 and thus probably in relatively good shape (just because they weren't as powerful or industrialized as America doesn't mean they were a poor house comparable to the Eastern European countries), Italy was in good enough shape to be considered a major power in both world wars, and Ireland was probably a part of the UK back then (have to check I guess). The African countries have been around for a long time, but the amazing free market has yet to do anything for them just as is the case with almost all the countries that were in the poor house at the time of their adoption of capitalism. Remember when I said Lenin and others GENERALLY preferred a country to become capitalist after it's feudal stage but not always? That's because a country under certain conditions will be doomed under capitalism. Doomed to be exploited by the wealthier countries till a system change. For these countries, the Marxists generally call for socialism, even the ''socialism'' of the SU or Cuba, because though the preconditions for successful socialism might not exist, at least it will be better than capitalism in such a situation. That is probably a big reason why Lenin chose (if he did, he may have had little control over the situation) to attempt socialism in Russia. If that backwater poor house country went capitalist, it would be exploited and raped JUST LIKE THE EASTERN EUROPEAN and African countries are NOW. But lemme guess, those countries are being exploited and raped, their ills are because they are apparently filled with layabouts. No no, it's because of their war and their poor starting conditions right? But people always conveniently forget to take this into account with the SU, even though socialism requires certain conditions whereas capitalism basically does not. The SU stank because it was socialist, but Zimbabwe stinks because of war, poor leaders, and a poor start  ::) If you intend to use those excuses to explain the consistently poor conditions of capitalist countries who had a poor start, then please be consistent and excuse the SU on the same basis...

And before you ask the same of the Marxists, remember that while they claim socialism will be successful given an industrialized country in a world with other socialist countries, no one ever made the same claim of capitalism. Will you choose that capitalism has conditions too, putting it in the same boat as socialism?. Then take note that the condition for capitalism is at least a world fairly close to wealth equality for all the countries. Otherwise, the rich countries will conduct imperialism on the poor countries through their investment. A far cry more unlikely than merely needing a few industrialized countries to be under socialism at the same time.

''Besides its supposed equity, a big rationale for collectivisation was scale advantage. That would either mean that farmers would have to move to urban areas en masse, or that they would have to be forcibly disposed of. Either way they weren't needed.

It's not irrational per se - accompanied with mechanisation, you definitely need less people to tend to farms.''

You realize that the small farmer has been driven to near extinction under capitalism, and that companies now own huge slabs of land right? Thus forcing such movement or poverty (Well, not that they would not face poverty moving to urban areas, but this would be more extreme. In pure capitalism it would mean death). The difference is that while these companies own machines and huge slabs of land, they take all kinds of measures that increase their profit at the expense of our health.

About this whole ''needless'' thing. Well, isn't that convenient,luckily for them they will receive decent care about socialism despite the predicament that is no fault of their own, and, will also probably be guaranteed jobs anyway... unlike in capitalism where in a similar predicament they got f@#$#@. All this is provided that they are not at the mercy of an insane, murderous dictator though. Doesn't seem like a big requirement does it?

''-----The point is, all these options were available within the existing Soviet system. The system did not choose between them; Stalin did. So the responsibility for that choice lies with Stalin, not with the Soviet system.----

Any talk of such alternatives is ahistorical  Wink''

Erm... no its not? How is it ahistorical to state that since Stalin made the choice, the responsibility for said choice is his and not the systems?

About the implication that a different leader probably would have made different choices, that is very different from your statement that the Eastern European countries would have been better off under capitalism. The former is obvious to the point that is not debatable; since when did different humans always act the same?. The latter, on the other hand, is far from obvious. If they went capitalist, who knows what string of events would proceed leading up to the current moment? Therein lies the major difference. Saying a different leader would have made different decisions is something that only looks at a single point of time. Saying that the Eastern European countries would be better off now or in 1950 or whatever, it looking at a point decades ago, hugely changing something, then trying to figure what things would be now or in 1950 or whatever (decades later). It's like trying to predict the temperature in Scotland or a stock market share's value 30 years from now compared to predicting whether hot water will come out when you adjust the tap knob accordingly. Yes, there is some negligible unknown to deal with in Edrico's point, but really it is pedantic and perhaps even asinine to mention it, as opposed to the huge unknown in your statement. They are completely different, and the attempt to put them in the same boat and rate them the same is ridiculous.

''I've always thought of catalogs as a means of advertising. Or do you mean catalogs made by third parties, like consumer organisations?''

What he has in mind are fact sheets providing hard data. Even  I, always unsure of what people are saying and always uncertain and ladening my text with ''probablies'', am sure enough of it that I can state it without expressing any uncertainty.

''In western economies people are motivated to work because of their paycheck. In the Soviet Union - before, during and after Stalin - people were motivated to work by intimidation and propaganda. I know wich I prefer.''

Well I prefer working for most other reasons to any of them and that is how things are supposed to be under socialism. By the way, you use the word paycheck, but for a huge portion of the world's population, that paycheck means life. They are motivated to work because the alternative is death, or horrendous poverty. Just for the record, I doubt that the first man in space or the people responsible for the first ship in space and the first permanent manned space station were motivated by intimidation or propoganda. These guys did this in a country that only recently couldn't manage running water never mind space stations. But hey, let's just forget that. Let's also forget that the ''American Dream'' is just huge propoganda too, or rather, a big trick, because nearly all lower class people will never live that dream, regardless of what they do. Peh, certainly there is no ''African Dream''. Perhaps half of the population has the motive of working for nice things. The other half work to keep their lives. This picture you paint of working for paychecks as an option that yields a reward, is as is so often with capitalist pictures, far nicer than reality for a great deal of the population. Depending on where you draw the line, more ''option'' becomes neccessity. If you HAVE to have a house, then the lower class HAVE to work as hard as they can as well, just as the poverty stricken must work (if they can) because they HAVE to have life. Even in the SU, provided that they were not threatened with murder, EVERYBODY had the OPTION of working with their lives being guaranteed. As I said earlier, if far from always the case with capitalism. I would much rather have the option of working working for something as opposed to being forced to work.

''I've read about game theory (including the prisoner's dillema) for a university course of Economy & Law, but that was a long time ago. But yes, I'm aware that people don't always act in their best interests.

Saying that you "trust" someone to do something implies that you realize this is not necessarily the case. I'd rather have people make their own choices than have them made by a patronising government. Misleading commercials can plausibly cause a great deal of harm, but many countries (mine in particular) already have very strict regulations in that regard.

I'm rather sleepy now, so I'll reply to the rest tomorrow.''

Another ''Stalin'' thing. Even if everybody has the same amount of cash, they don't need to necessarily buy the same things (if that was how it was in the SU)

[Anathema]

Sneakgab, calm down. I wasn't trying to take a cheap shot at developing countries. My point was that eastern Europe didn't significantly lag behind countries in the west before WWII, and the fact that they do now is because of the economic system imposed on them by the Soviet Union.

The looting and the ham-handed occupation by the Red Army and the absence of Marshall aid would partly explain why they didn't recover as quickly, but it doesn't explain why the whole structure stagnated a couple of decades later and came crashing down.

Some minor points:

Italy was never a "great power". Their permormance against Austro-Hungary in WW1 was abominable, as was their assistance to the Germans in WW2.

Ireland, except the northern part, became de facto independent of the UK shortly after WW1. At the time it was one of the poorest countries in Europe.

And for the record, I don't think that a laissez-faire strategy is the answer to Africa's problems. It will require a sound economic policy from their governments and long-term investments from well-off countries, also in areas and sectors wich aren't particulary "profitable". Socialism won't bring either of those.

[Sneakgab]

Well sorry if I was rude. I was worried that my language was  a little strong in places. For the record, much of my use of capitals is because I didn't know about the italics code till now :-[, so it was the next best thing. It wasn't due to anger or an intention to insult or patronize.

I will admit that when writing that post my memory failed me and I forgot that you weren't comparing the Eastern European countries to South American ones (to say look: The South American countries did better under capitalism and they were in the same situation!), but that actually you were responding to Edric O saying something along the lines of: What makes you think Eastern Europe wouldn't have turned into another South America (in response to you saying that Eastern Europe would have been a better off. Well as you can see, that was a lapse in memory that sent me off on a bit tangent. Whoops  :P.

Now for your REAL point :D. What makes you think that the Eastern European countries were not far behind the western countries directly prior to their taking into the SU? In the 1900s, it was obvious that the western countries were far ahead and much more powerful. Let's look at the western countries with colonies: Britain, France, Germany (I think, regardless they were obviously powerful and leading) and Spain. Lets look at the Eastern European countries....... I don't believe I've ever head of an Eastern European colony have you?

The next thing is that it is obvious that the Western countries industrialized long before Eastern Europe. The Eastern European countries only industrialized once they were part of the SU. Meanwhile, some of the Western countries (britain) started industrializing over a century ago (from the time the Eastern European countries started industrialization). Clearly, the western countries were FAR more industrialized.

Another thing to note is that it seems there is some kind of official declaration of who the ''great powers'' were in 1919 (very shortly before the creation of the SU, when the revolution was still very young). They are: America, Britain, France, Japan and Italy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_powers#List_of_great_powers_by_date. Well obviously this is not necessarily much of an economic indicator. Who knows how they decided these countries were ''great powers''. I thought it was something of interest though. Also note that after 1919 the capitalists powers hardly change. The only exception is Germany. Strangely enough they consider Russia in 2000 to be a super power though? I wonder what kind of doinky logic they're using? Maybe this wasn't of interest after all.  :P

Well whatever. It seems obvious that there was a huge gap between the western countries and the Eastern European ones. It's not like I've gone over any numbers though, so you MAY be right. I have to say though, I sincerely doubt it. If you produced evidence to the contrary, I would definitely be greatly surprised (non-industrialized frequently feudal countries VS long ago industrialized democratic capitalist imperial powers and the Eastern European countries come up close?).

So the Eastern European countries clearly hadn't developed as well as the Western countries. But you know what there are thousands of years of circumstance behind that that had nothing to with capitalism or socialism. What is actually important is to look at the development of the countries during the period of the SU. Why did I go through all that trouble of presenting all that evidence that indicated that the Eastern European countries were far behind the western countries you ask? Well, you made a statement that I sincerely doubted to be true, so I thought I'd post evidence to the contrary. It is also important though, in that poor countries usually don't improve under capitalism. They are usually exploited and forever remain sources of raw materials and cheap labor for the wealthy countries.

Let's look at the countries during this period then shall we? Africa.. A $h!t house basically. Little more to say. South America... pretty much the same. Asia... mostly the same. This pretty much covers the non-rich countries (countries whose situation was the same as that of Eastern Europe.). These places started poorly and saw little improvement. They are basically the same. Once again I'll say I haven't seen the stats or anything but this clearly seems to be the general case.

Of course, you will now presumably proceed to reference China, Japan and the other exceptions.

Well, I'm off to bed for now. Maybe I'll add more and edit this tomorrow.

[Edric O]

Hwi:

Pretty much, but to state my position a little more accurately, I would clarify that the Soviet government made a show of respecting its constitution by implementing democratic reforms requiring full elections with multiple candidates and secret ballots.

Permit me to use a brief illustration to make my point: Suppose a couple gets legally married, holds the big wedding ceremony replete with all the traditional customs and rituals; then after the honeymoon, returns to their new home where they immediately proceed to sleep in separate bedrooms, barely ever speak to one another and regularly engage in extramarital affairs and other abuses

[Edric O]

Anathema, I'm afraid I don't have the time to answer everything right now, but I do have a quick point:

My point was that eastern Europe didn't significantly lag behind countries in the west before WWII, and the fact that they do now is because of the economic system imposed on them by the Soviet Union.

Say what...? Of course Eastern Europe lagged behind the West before WW2! Western countries were industrialized, and/or benefited from colonial empires. The East was still mostly agrarian, and had no colonies. The gap between East and West was then made worse by the war (which was a lot more destructive in the East), and by the Marshall Plan.

[chatfsh]

I think we can end our debate about the Soviet system on the same note. If the Soviet Union still existed, disagreements about its nature would affect important political decisions. But since it no longer exists, disagreements about its nature have become a purely historical dispute, instead of a political one.

A preliminary search through a few generic Soviet history books has revealed no mention at all of any reforms in the 1930s to allow multiple candidates per office or the participation of non-Party members. Looks like I'll have to search through some books that go into more detail about that period. I've already gone through one such book - Alec Nove's Stalinism and After - and again found no mention at all of any democratic reforms, real or imagined (though he does mention that Stalin called the Soviet Constitution of 1936 "the most democratic constitution in the world"; and it's true that this was probably a good description of the text of the constitution).

This silence about the reforms you mentioned makes me wonder if they ever went beyond the stage of promises. I'll keep looking.

My conclusion on the matter is that the Soviet Union was a failed experiment in socialism, but was also the closest model that we have for a historical socialist state.  Had the right leaders been at the helm, perhaps stronger measures would have been employed to bring about the democratic society enshrined in the Soviet constitution.  

The only point of contention that remains is whether or not Stalin

[Anathema]

Now for your REAL point :D. What makes you think that the Eastern European countries were not far behind the western countries directly prior to their taking into the SU? In the 1900s, it was obvious that the western countries were far ahead and much more powerful. Let's look at the western countries with colonies: Britain, France, Germany (I think, regardless they were obviously powerful and leading) and Spain. Lets look at the Eastern European countries....... I don't believe I've ever head of an Eastern European colony have you?

The next thing is that it is obvious that the Western countries industrialized long before Eastern Europe. The Eastern European countries only industrialized once they were part of the SU. Meanwhile, some of the Western countries (britain) started industrializing over a century ago (from the time the Eastern European countries started industrialization). Clearly, the western countries were FAR more industrialized.

Say what...? Of course Eastern Europe lagged behind the West before WW2! Western countries were industrialized' date=' and/or benefited from colonial empires. The East was still mostly agrarian, and had no colonies. The gap between East and West was then made worse by the war (which was a lot more destructive in the East), and by the Marshall Plan.[/color']

There's a whole bunch of countries in western Europe. The most industrialised countries were Germany, France, the UK and (probably) Belgium. Most others were far less industrialised, and Italy was somewhere in between.

Most of the countries in eastern Europe wich were annexed by Germany or wich collaberated "freely" built their own tanks and planes for the war effort. The Netherlands on the other hand, while fairly rich, could only supply manpower and scrap metal for Germany's industry.

After the war, the Netherlands had even less industrial capacity then before. We sent soldiers to Indonesia to prevent them from becoming independent and failed - a waste of lives and money. Our other colonies (Dutch Guinea/Surinam wich later became independent peacefully and the Netherlands Antilles) never were a cash cow to begin with.

Then there's the Marshall plan wich Stalin didn't allow his newly acquired "colonies" to take advantage of. I've never looked into the exact size of this program or its economic effects, so let's just assume that it was substantial.

But neither Spain or Finland had large industries or colonies*, neither received Marshall aid and both far exceeded the COMECON countries in economic growth. And that's after Spain fought a bloody civil war, and Finland fought two costly wars against the Soviet Union.

In short, western Europe may have had something of a head start but this should not be exaggerated. In any case it can't explain the collective stagnation of the eastern bloc, wich is entirely systemic.

*(Spain's remaining colonial holdings amounted to a piece of the Sahara and some islands. Hence they had no "large" colonies.)