Many Capitalists say that Socialist states have been poor ?

[tradeunionsupporter]

Many Capitalists say that Socialist states have been poor my question is do the problems faced by Socialist nations have anything to do with the Cold War and other Wars thank you ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War

[Railyon]

Depends on how you define poor. Lower GDP than Western states? Poor is always a relation to the wealth of someone else.

I'd argue the SU itself was "richer" than Tzarist Russia in the sense that it saw tremendous industrialization for example, but maybe we oughta look at how "wealth" is distributed?

I'm not sure if it holds any ground, but I had always been under the impression that the people of the Eastern Bloc would have been materially better off if it weren't for their states' military spending, especially the SU. Because you can't eat rockets, duh. After getting into Marxism I'm not so sure of that anymore though. One can't ignore the influence of the Cold War on world economy in general though, not even the West.

Permanent Arms Economy, anyone?

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

They may be poor for western standards, but when you compare then to countries around them they aren't as poor.

[danyboy27]

If overconsumption and overproduction mean being rich then no, the soviet union wasnt rich.

But on avearge the soviet population benefited from a raising living standard over the years and the poorest soviet was way richer than the poorest american.

[Conscript]

Previous socialist states operated like state capitalists who had no no neo-colonies to exploit. They managed what they had fairly well and reached a higher standard of living than most countries in the world (with more social programs and generous trade subsidies than almost anywhere else), but they were hindered by massive military budgets and the unwillingness of the bureaucracy to invest in new technology and retrofit what they already had.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

One also has to take into consideration that socialist revolutions usually happen in "third-world" countries where the bourgeoisie are weaker ,so as a result, the socialist state is "poorer."

[fabian]

What "socialist" countries?

[Brosip Tito]

What "socialist" countries?
This as well as taking note, as thegodlessutopian stated, these revolutions did not occur in the advanced capitalist societies, but in the 3rd world peasant domianted countries.

So, it's quite true to say these "socialist" (read: State capitalist) nations were relatively poor compared to the more advanced, 1st world.

Now, in comparison to the other 3rd world nations, we did see a rise in the living standards in comparison, as well as in comparison to the previous regime of the nation (Tsarist russia for example).

I think, if you are arguing this, take the stance that first off, they were not socialist, and secondly, that they were initially in the third world and actually raised the standard of living.

[fabian]

I'd like to make an additional couple of points.

Firstly, "if some nation is poor" is measured in currency, and the worth of a nation's currency is based on many specualtive notions and foreign relations, the extreme of which would be santions, where the currency of the counrty under sanctions plumits, but less extreme versions of this happen all the time with the changes of exchange rates.

I think a people's wealth should be measured by the amount of people who can afford to meet their basic needs of housing, food, utilities, transport, health care, and recreation

Second thing I want to mention- a very important detailed should be added- "amount of people who can afford to meet their basic needs by their work". The amount of debt should be subtracted from wealth.

So, according to this, IMO- realistic definition of people's wealth, I'd say that the mostly-peasant communist (Free Territory, Anarchist Spain) and state-capitalist (USSR and it's satelites) societies were in fact richer then the nations living under the capitalist system.

[Arlekino]

I grow up in Soviet Union we never short of food. Every week we used go to cinema, theatre, circus or other events. My mum used do parties at home tables was full of food. Try do now? I don't think so!

[Krano]

Depends on how you define poor. Lower GDP than Western states? Poor is always a relation to the wealth of someone else.

I'd argue the SU itself was "richer" than Tzarist Russia in the sense that it saw tremendous industrialization for example, but maybe we oughta look at how "wealth" is distributed?

I'm not sure if it holds any ground, but I had always been under the impression that the people of the Eastern Bloc would have been materially better off if it weren't for their states' military spending, especially the SU. Because you can't eat rockets, duh. After getting into Marxism I'm not so sure of that anymore though. One can't ignore the influence of the Cold War on world economy in general though, not even the West.

Permanent Arms Economy, anyone?
I love when people use GDP to say that Capitalism is successful, great example of this would be India they have high GDP yet they also have 42% poverty rate and malnourished poverty stricken population.

[Rafiq]

Yes, they were poor, and they had shit living conditions. Virtually every single one of them, actually.

This, however, doesn't really say much. The Left must agree that they were disastrous shit holes, but what we should be arguing about is: Why?

[Genghis]

Stefan Koppelkamm took photos of E Germany before the Berlin Wall was knocked down by East Germans fed up with Socialism. Ten years later, he returned to the same locations and took the photos again. Here are the before and after photos. (http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/fotostrecke-59943.html)

I will post one set of before and after photos:

Before the Revolution of 1991:

http://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/files/2012/05/1991.jpg


After:

http://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/files/2012/05/2003.jpg

Do yourself a favor. Click the link (http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/fotostrecke-59943.html)and go through all the photos to see the difference between capitalism and socialism.

[Drosophila]

Stefan Koppelkamm took photos of E Germany before the Berlin Wall was knocked down by East Germans fed up with Socialism. Ten years later, he returned to the same locations and took the photos again. Here are the before and after photos. (http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/fotostrecke-59943.html)

I will post one set of before and after photos:


Do yourself a favor. Click the link (http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/fotostrecke-59943.html)and go through all the photos to see the difference between capitalism and socialism.



http://archivethumb.foolz.us/board/a/img/0618/55/1330093095660.jpg

[Genghis]

I love when people use GDP to say that Capitalism is successful, great example of this would be India they have high GDP yet they also have 42% poverty rate and malnourished poverty stricken population.

That's because India was partially Socialist. The man who led India to Independence was Nehru, a Fabian Socialist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Society). He implemented Socialist policies, perhaps not leftist enough to your liking but on the left nevertheless.

You see, all economies are mixed. There are no pure capitalist or socialist economies. But the more left, the more of a shit-hole it becomes.

[Yuppie Grinder]

That's because India was partially Socialist. The man who led India to Independence was Nehru, a Fabian Socialist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Society). He implemented Socialist policies, perhaps not leftist enough to your liking but on the left nevertheless.

You see, all economies are mixed. There are no pure capitalist or socialist economies. But the more left, the more of a shit-hole it becomes.
hahahahahahahahahaha
wow you don't even know what capitalism and socialism are, do you?
i bet if i walked up to you on the street and asked you for a definition of either you wouldn't be able to give me an answer
funny how you feel so strongly about something you know so little about

[Genghis]

http://archivethumb.foolz.us/board/a/img/0618/55/1330093095660.jpg

Hahahahahaha. I find it funny too that so many people still believe in Socialism after the Berlin Wall was knocked down.

[Drosophila]

That's because India was partially Socialist. The man who led India to Independence was Nehru, a Fabian Socialist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Society). He implemented Socialist policies, perhaps not leftist enough to your liking but on the left nevertheless.

You see, all economies are mixed. There are no pure capitalist or socialist economies. But the more left, the more of a shit-hole it becomes.

Would you care to give us examples of present-day capitalist and socialist economies?


Hahahahahaha. I find i funny too that so many people still believe in Socialism after the Berlin Wall was knocked down.

That's what's so funny.

[Rafiq]

That's because India was partially Socialist. The man who led India to Independence was Nehru, a Fabian Socialist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Society). He implemented Socialist policies, perhaps not leftist enough to your liking but on the left nevertheless.

You see, all economies are mixed. There are no pure capitalist or socialist economies. But the more left, the more of a shit-hole it becomes.

If you weren't a self declared "socialist" you'd be overthrown at that time. It doesn't mean shit. India has always been neoliberal

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Rafiq]

Stefan Koppelkamm took photos of E Germany before the Berlin Wall was knocked down by East Germans fed up with Socialism. Ten years later, he returned to the same locations and took the photos again. Here are the before and after photos. (http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/fotostrecke-59943.html)

I will post one set of before and after photos:

Before the Revolution of 1991:

http://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/files/2012/05/1991.jpg


After:

http://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/files/2012/05/2003.jpg

Do yourself a favor. Click the link (http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/fotostrecke-59943.html)and go through all the photos to see the difference between capitalism and socialism.

Be consistant. Cuba vs. Somalia

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[NewLeft]

Stefan Koppelkamm took photos of E Germany before the Berlin Wall was knocked down by East Germans fed up with Socialism. Ten years later, he returned to the same locations and took the photos again. Here are the before and after photos. (http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/fotostrecke-59943.html)

I will post one set of before and after photos:

Before the Revolution of 1991:

After:

Do yourself a favor. Click the link (http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/fotostrecke-59943.html)and go through all the photos to see the difference between capitalism and socialism.
After reunification, the federal/state intiated a renovation project for cities.

[Anarcho-Brocialist]

Let's assay the United States. It's a rich nation in regards to GDP, but 10 percent of people own a majority of the nations wealth, 8.2% of the population is unemployed, A third of Americans under age 65 - 86.7 million people -- went without health insurance at some point during the past two years. 636,017 Americans are homeless, 14.3% of people in America were living in poverty.

Does that sound like the people are very rich to you?

Also, as an engineer, I've witnessed primitive civil infrastructure.
School Buildings literally are crumbling; more than half of U.S. roadways are in substandard condition; airports will face gridlock by 2004; and tens of thousands of people become ill each year from contaminated drinking water. Accordingly, it is fair to say the nation's infrastructure is in pretty bad shape. Without substantial help, the situation is not going to get any better.

The American Society of Civil Engineers has released a Report Card for America's Infrastructure, assigning letter grades for the nation's public infrastructure and environment. The ASCE gave the U.S. an average grade of "D," and said it will require more than one trillion dollars and a new national public-private partnership to fix it.
Sources :http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?
ds=z1ebjpgk2654c1_&met_y=unemployment_rate&idim=country:US&fdim_y=seasonality:S&dl=en&hl=en&q=unemployment+rate+in+us
http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/03/04/us-usa-health-uninsured-idUSTRE5233QM20090304
http://www.endhomelessness.org/content/article/detail/4371
http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/13/news/economy/poverty_rate_income/index.htm

[Klaatu]

Has anyone noticed that capitalists (from imperialist countries) will set up shop in countries that are abundant in natural resources (for example, petroleum) and then claim that it is the capitalist system itself which is superior, while nations which are not swimming in natural resources, are condemned as 'hopelessly poor' (as they usually set up a communist system) and it is this lack of national wealth and resources that is used to "prove" the "failure" of Communism?

My point is that, capitalism is seen as the only system that can produce wealth. (this is an epic-fail argument.)

[ridethejetski]

Be consistant. Cuba vs. Somalia

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

Comparing Cuba to Somalia is beyond ridiculous

[roy]

Comparing Cuba to Somalia is beyond ridiculous

if i'm not mistaken, that's the point. it's stupid just to compare countries on an ideological basis re. living conditions without taking into account material conditions, geopolitical factors, w/e

anyway, it must be fun inside the head of these capitalist evangelist types.

"silly socialists. their ideas are clearly underdeveloped. these photographs ought to set them straight!"

[Sputnik_1]

they were not socialist in first place

[Ocean Seal]

Do yourself a favor. Click the link (http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/fotostrecke-59943.html)and go through all the photos to see the difference between capitalism and socialism.
So what you are telling me is that you can post some images of renovated buildings and call it a triumph of capitalism over socialism.
*Posts pictures of slums*
Either make a legitimate argument or fuck off.

[JAM]

One of the anti-communist myths propagated in the West is that the GDP per capita of the eastern economies were far behind those of the west. Actually, the GDP per capita in some countries of the Eastern Bloc and even inside the USSR (the Baltics) were higher than some western countries.

Another curious fact is that in the thirties the GDP per capita in USSR grew more than in any other country in the world.

Still regarding this, the GDP per capita in North Korea was higher than the South Korean one until the stagnation of the soviet economy.

If you want I can provide the numbers.

[Koba Junior]

If you want I can provide the numbers.

Comrade, I would appreciate it very much if you did show us those numbers. They will be invaluable in an unbiased understanding of the history of socialism and revolution.

[Genghis]

One of the anti-communist myths propagated in the West is that the GDP per capita of the eastern economies were far behind those of the west. Actually, the GDP per capita in some countries of the Eastern Bloc and even inside the USSR (the Baltics) were higher than some western countries.

Another curious fact is that in the thirties the GDP per capita in USSR grew more than in any other country in the world.

Still regarding this, the GDP per capita in North Korea was higher than the South Korean one until the stagnation of the soviet economy.

If you want I can provide the numbers.

The SU and N Korea did grow faster initially but in the long run they failed.

[Genghis]

So what you are telling me is that you can post some images of renovated buildings and call it a triumph of capitalism over socialism.
*Posts pictures of slums*
Either make a legitimate argument or fuck off.

The pictures show that progress was made after the Berlin Wall was brought down by people fed up with Socialism.

[tachosomoza]

In the minds of the bourgeois, poor is defined as the absence of a ridiculously wealthy and oppressive capitalist class and a government that is run by the people, not by corporations who oppress and exploit the people. So, yeah, socialist countries are poor as dirt by capitalist standards.

[Genghis]

they were not socialist in first place

No, they were not by your fairy tale defination of Socialism that is impossible to achieve. But they were attempts at achieving what your faith believe is possible - a heaven on earth. But they were attempts at achieving Socialism which produced a hell on earth.

[#FF0000]

No, they were not by your fairy tale defination of Socialism that is impossible to achieve.

If you admit they are not our definition of socialism, then why do you keep attributing north korea, cuba, and the USSR to us?

Maybe, instead, you should focus your energies on explaining why it's impossible.

[Genghis]

In the minds of the bourgeois, poor is defined as the absence of a ridiculously wealthy and oppressive capitalist class and a government that is run by the people, not by corporations who oppress and exploit the people. So, yeah, socialist countries are poor as dirt by capitalist standards.

Ah, you are wrong. Socialist countries do have an oppressive class who live in luxury while the oppressed lower classes toil.

Take Kim Jong Il for example (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/19/world/19iht-norkor.html?_r=1).

Excerpts:



And in the late 1990s, when about two million North Koreans starved to death, their Dear Leader - as Kim Jong Il is known - sent his personal chef to Tokyo to buy fresh sushi, to Tehran to buy caviar, to Copenhagen for gourmet bacon and to Paris for the finest wines and cognacs.


This is always the end result of all attempts to achieve Socialism. A group of leaders, conning the "useful idiots (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot)" to become cannon fodder to launch a revolution against the top 1% with promises of an impossible dream (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfHnzYEHAow)of a socialist utopia, end up becoming the new 1%.

Of course, the "useful idiots" outside the Socialist slave plantation, still will not give up their religion. Instead, they convince themselves that what happened was not real Socialism and next time its going to be different.

They never learn. :laugh::laugh::laugh:

[Koba Junior]

No, they were not by your fairy tale defination of Socialism that is impossible to achieve. But they were attempts at achieving what your faith believe is possible - a heaven on earth. But they were attempts at achieving Socialism which produced a hell on earth.

You could replace "socialism" with "capitalism" in the above and it would make much more sense. Don't capitalist apologists themselves describe a "true capitalism" that yields abundance and prosperity for the hard-working? Yet, what we see is the exact opposite: a production of abundance unavailable to all but an oligarchy of owners.

[tachosomoza]

North Korea is not a socialist state, it's a militarized, racist jingo that preaches self reliance but constantly has its hand out for concessions (aid) to keep its people from starving because every resource goes to the military.

[#FF0000]

Instead, they convince themselves that what happened was not real Socialism and next time its going to be different

There's no reason why things wouldn't turn out differently in a different time and different place, though. Especially if one looks back and explores what happened in these countries and why they turned out as they did.

Your approach instead, though, is to look and say 'oh they aren't around anymore, socialism's a failure" without any sort of exploration or attempt to understand "why" whatsoever.

Honestly it's kind of maddening to me, as a person who sees the world for what it is -- exasperatingly complex.

[seventeethdecember2016]

Ah, you are wrong. Socialist countries do have an oppressive class who live in luxury while the oppressed lower classes toil.

Take Kim Jong Il for example (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/19/world/19iht-norkor.html?_r=1).

Point one: You vigorously mistake definitions of Socialism, and, further, you refuse our right to maintain competent definitions of our own ideology.
Point two: North Korea hasn't been respectfully Socialist since 1977, when Kim Il-Sung introduced Juche. Kim Jong Il, who is disliked by any knowledgeable Socialist, should not be representative of Socialism(I will explain why in the next point.)
Point three: Those who exploit Socialism, and replace it with self righteousness, should not be representative of the Socialist movement. To claim that Kim Jong Il is representative of Socialism is comparitive to saying that Osama Bin Laden is representative of Islam. You are simply degrading yourself to fallacies, which is why no one will take you seriously on these forums.



This is always the end result of all attempts to achieve Socialism. A group of leaders, conning the "useful idiots (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot)" to become cannon fodder to launch a revolution against the top 1% with promises of an impossible dream (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfHnzYEHAow)of a socialist utopia, end up becoming the new 1%.
Invalid conclusion. I strongly suggest reading a few books before you decide to preach what 'Real Socialism' is to Lefties. With each and every comment, you are showing more and more ignorance.
This has much to do with point 2 and 3.


Of course, the "useful idiots" outside the Socialist slave plantation, still will not give up their religion. Instead, they convince themselves that what happened was not real Socialism and next time its going to be different.

A few 20th century Revisionist countries are certainly not going to be the repeat of a modern Revolution. You blatantly disregard the stagnation periods, and radiate much Cold War-era Chauvinism. We Socialists aren't interested in conflicting with the unenlightened Reactionists, rather we will disregard you entirely.




I will end this but with a question. Not too much of a question, but a fair question. Was free market Capitalism possible in the 13th century? I am not referring to some Merchant Republic, or other nonsense that you'd consider Capitalist, but I mean a FREE MARKET CAPITALIST system. If not, then don't bother us by making claims that Socialism is impossible.

[seventeethdecember2016]

@Ginghis
Some of your main points:

Pictures of undeveloped areas, which are now developed, in East Germany, proves that Socialism doesn't work.

Nehru was a Socialist.

Mixed(Keynesian) economies are the ONLY true economies in the world.

The Berlin Wall signified the end of Socialism.

The Eastern Bloc states were Socialist.

Socialism is a lie.

Socialism is a religion.

Socialism will never be established.

Kim Jong-Il was the perfect example of a Socialist.





Here is a past post of mine on another thread. I hope it answers any misconceptions you may have on the Eastern Bloc and Socialism.

It should be pointed out that Poland was ranked 33rd by the UN's 1986 Human Development Index (http://www.anonym.to/?http://lib.stat.cmu.edu/datasets/humandevel) with a score of .910. This is comparable to the USA's .961 and the Soviet Union's .920.
The Human Development Index is used to rank countries by their life expectancy, literacy, education, and standards of living.

Although Poland was a terrible country, at the time, it was comparatively a reasonable place to live. It was also a pretty resourcefully limited place to live, as there were massive economic problems, which should be noted. This story of yours touched me, but it was unlikely that your great-grandmother would have lived very long anyway. It is not uncharacteristic of doctors to use their medicine for patients that are more likely to live. She deserved some pain killers however.


A Revisionist country like Poland should not be considered Communist. For some odd reason Socialism and Communism are equated with government ownership of the means of production by the West. We, as intelligible Socialists and Communists, know that this is nothing more than a strawman. A Vanguard that has a share of control over the Means of Production to discourage cartels can be considered Socialist. Note: Vanguard control should be viewed differently from Government control, as the former exists for the proper emancipation of the workers in the workers' state, while the latter exists to maintain some degenerate state. This thread can be found here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/my-own-familys-t170963/index.html?t=170963).

[Sputnik_1]

No, they were not by your fairy tale defination of Socialism that is impossible to achieve. But they were attempts at achieving what your faith believe is possible - a heaven on earth. But they were attempts at achieving Socialism which produced a hell on earth.

Well, I'm happy that we agry on the fact that they weren't socialist (you know, there is a slight difference between socialism and attempts to achieve socialism). What exactly is impossible to achieve in your opinion? a progressive not greedy society that doesn't necessarily need a despotic dictatorship?