Another Fatal Flaw With Communism?

[kelvin90701]

I ask the Communist to educate me on this one. I really don't understand why a Communist country has never out produced a capitalist one per capita or per country?

Am I wrong? Has it ever been done? How about a specific period of time? For example war production? Or a specific industry? The closest example I have ever seen was an analysis on farm production in the USSR. It found that all the private vegatable gardens in the USSR per person was far more productive than any collective farm. I am sorry I can not provide a link or quote the source. Take it with a grain of salt, but my question at the top still requires an honest answer. Please provide as many sources as possible so I can research beyond the scope of this forum.

[canikickit]

I don't know, and I don't think it really matters - the aim is not to be ultra productive. MAny countries produce too much. In Ireland our agricultural products are artificially inflated in price because they could be sold to cheaply or underwritten otherwise.

[Chiak47]

Why would a worker in a commie country care about rate's and production when they know if they work harder they will have no more than if the did the minimum.

re:no reward when everyone is the same.

America pulls together when there is money involved cause people like to be rewarded for a job well done.

[man in the red suit]

Quote: from kelvin90701 on 1:23 am on Mar. 25, 2003
I ask the Communist to educate me on this one. I really don't understand why a Communist country has never out produced a capitalist one per capita or per country?

Am I wrong? Has it ever been done? How about a specific period of time? For example war production? Or a specific industry? The closest example I have ever seen was an analysis on farm production in the USSR. It found that all the private vegatable gardens in the USSR per person was far more productive than any collective farm. I am sorry I can not provide a link or quote the source. Take it with a grain of salt, but my question at the top still requires an honest answer. Please provide as many sources as possible so I can research beyond the scope of this forum.


don't bother to find a source. It is a proven fac t that collective farming does not work for shit. Agriculturally, the USSR was a failure but just look at any source of industrial production. The USSR accounted for 1/5th of the world's production of industrial products. They produced more steal than almost all of the western countries combined. The USSR has outdone most capitalist countries, America included, in both heavy and light industry. they also had many more employment opportunities than did America.

These are all of course, products of socialism. You are correct in believing that communism does not work because it in fact does NOT work. Socialism is the superior economic system to capitalism, not communism. society's new technological and scientific innovations make communism impossible to ever be achieved, unless of course, a new Lenin comes along who modifies the teachings of Karl Marx to adapt to the 21st century.

[Chiak47]

I agree-Socialism works in Sweden.But it's still not for me.
As far as out producing the US?Ahh... I need proof.

[man in the red suit]

Quote: from Chiak47 on 1:44 am on Mar. 25, 2003
America pulls together when there is money involved cause people like to be rewarded for a job well done.


of course everyone likes to be rewarded for a job well done but must they be rewarded with money? how about knowing that You've done a fine day's job. I understand what you are saying and you are right. Money has corrupted us all. It is the thing most people nowadays, care about. But just so you can take a look from our perspective. How about this for an incentive, don't work, don't live.

[kelvin90701]

Quote: from canikickit on 1:39 am on Mar. 25, 2003
I don't know, and I don't think it really matters - the aim is not to be ultra productive. MAny countries produce too much. In Ireland our agricultural products are artificially inflated in price because they could be sold to cheaply or underwritten otherwise.


In modern industrial nations, with modern industrial sized populations, production is the difference between starvation and a full belly. In post WW2 Europe, American occupied administrators toyed with the idea of artificially throttling down the economy for ever. The idea was a Germany that was not productive would never be able to produce weapons for war again. In the final analysis a throttled down economy would never be able to feed the German population. There simply was too many of them. That is why the Marshall plan was so generous. Even more so for Japan. It is even more important for Japan to be productive because of their very dense population.

[Pete]

There is a flaw in this arguement Kelvin (the original). The purpose of communism is not competition, so one would produce what is needed and would not worry to much about surplus.

I know that does not answer your pratical question, but it answers a theoritical one. It may not exist because that is not the purpose. People over profit.

[kelvin90701]

Quote: from Chiak47 on 1:51 am on Mar. 25, 2003
I agree-Socialism works in Sweden.But it's still not for me.
As far as out producing the US?Ahh... I need proof.


Sweeden GDP = $20,353 http://biz.yahoo.com/ifc/se/

USA GDP = $32,042 http://biz.yahoo.com/ifc/us/

Or our GDP is 57% bigger per person than Sweeden.

[Chiak47]

Auschwitz has a inscribe on it gates in stone-
Work Makes Free that goes along with the saying "don't work, don't live"


(Edited by Chiak47 at 2:12 am on Mar. 25, 2003)

[kelvin90701]

Quote: from Chiak47 on 2:10 am on Mar. 25, 2003
Auschwitz has a inscribe on it gates in stone-
Work Makes Free that goes along with the saying "don't work, don't live"
(Edited by Chiak47 at 2:12 am on Mar. 25, 2003)


Please explain. How does this support or refute that a communist economy can not out produce a free market.

[Chiak47]

I was just making a comment about man in the red suit's post.

Yeah pride has alot to be desired.But money and a easier life makes it more enjoyable to get up every morning.

Cause we can all agree that it sucks to be poor.

[Chiak47]

kelvin90701 interesting #'s.

man in the red suit stated and I quote
"The USSR has outdone most capitalist countries, America included, in both heavy and light industry"
Thats the #'s I'm looking for.

I always thought the US out spent and out produced the USSR

[kelvin90701]

I am looking for the same evidence.

[kelvin90701]

Quote:
don't bother to find a source. It is a proven fac t that collective farming does not work for shit. Agriculturally, the USSR was a failure but just look at any source of industrial production. The USSR accounted for 1/5th of the world's production of industrial products. They produced more steal than almost all of the western countries combined. The USSR has outdone most capitalist countries, America included, in both heavy and light industry. they also had many more employment opportunities than did America.


Red Suit:

Just same I would like to see your source of numbers. So would Chiak.

[sc4r]

Quote: from Chiak47 on 2:22 am on Mar. 25, 2003
kelvin90701 interesting #'s.

man in the red suit stated and I quote
"The USSR has outdone most capitalist countries, America included, in both heavy and light industry"
Thats the #'s I'm looking for.

I always thought the US out spent and out produced the USSR


Why the obsession with production volume. No socialist country would want to be judged on whether it outperforms capitalism at capitalism surely.

There are plenty of very good reasons whyone would expect a socilaist country to outperform a capitalist economy in delivering what people actually want Mostly these are connected to prisnoers dilemma's and to the fact that what capitalism rewards directly is not ability to produce but ability to negotiate or find a loophole.

Do I care that america is good at producing Big macs and massive munitions and that its capitalists are good at manipulating and guessing which way the stock and currency markets will swing ? No Not really, these things make GDP look good but deliver nothing of real value.

Do I think it is relevant that America is not and never has been a pure capitalist country but has been built up under democracy (a decidedly non capitalist notion) and now 'owns' a good slice of the rest of the worlds production thus inflating its own apparent economy. Bet your life I do.

And what do you want to contrast this democratic state that is rapidly becoming an imperialist capital one with ? Why Fascism, which has less in common with socialism than the USA does even.



(Edited by sc4r at 2:42 am on Mar. 25, 2003)

[Chiak47]

I am driven by money.

[Pete]

Good for you. But a socialist economy would not be. That makes this entire arguement about a 'flaw' empty and lacking any backbone.

[man in the red suit]

Quote: from kelvin90701 on 2:30 am on Mar. 25, 2003

Quote:
don't bother to find a source. It is a proven fac t that collective farming does not work for shit. Agriculturally, the USSR was a failure but just look at any source of industrial production. The USSR accounted for 1/5th of the world's production of industrial products. They produced more steal than almost all of the western countries combined. The USSR has outdone most capitalist countries, America included, in both heavy and light industry. they also had many more employment opportunities than did America.


Red Suit:

Just same I would like to see your source of numbers. So would Chiak.


certainly, Just give me some time to gather my sources. Let's say a couple days or so, I have 4 books that substantiate my claims. I will bring over to my dad's house (where I have the computer) and type them all down in a post.

[man in the red suit]

Quote: from sc4r on 2:32 am on Mar. 25, 2003

Quote: from Chiak47 on 2:22 am on Mar. 25, 2003
kelvin90701 interesting #'s.

man in the red suit stated and I quote
"The USSR has outdone most capitalist countries, America included, in both heavy and light industry"
Thats the #'s I'm looking for.

I always thought the US out spent and out produced the USSR


Why the obsession with production volume. No socialist country would want to be judged on whether it outperforms capitalism at capitalism surely.

There are plenty of very good reasons whyone would expect a socilaist country to outperform a capitalist economy in delivering what people actually want Mostly these are connected to prisnoers dilemma's and to the fact that what capitalism rewards directly is not ability to produce but ability to negotiate or find a loophole.

Do I care that america is good at producing Big macs and massive munitions and that its capitalists are good at manipulating and guessing which way the stock and currency markets will swing ? No Not really, these things make GDP look good but deliver nothing of real value.



I agree with you, absolutely, however if we want to get anything across to the capitalists, we have to get things across to them on their grounds. capitalists really only care about statistics and numbers, not the living conditions of the people. Since they do not want to hear about the condition of the human being in socialist countries, it has come to a battle of who spends and produces more.

[Chiak47]

Yep,china is a commie/socialist(whatever-same shit) country and they have the best working conditions...right?

[man in the red suit]

by the way to all you cappies, if you would like to look at the same sources that i used for the information, I can give you the name of the books.

USA/USSR a political power

NIKITA KHRUSCHEV a biography by Roy Medvedev (hope i did not butcher the name)

A study of the Soviet Union

Socialism : It's theoretical roots and modern day practice

Communism: " "

now I know that is vague however I have more sources and that the right names and authors included lol. Just wait untiol wednesday and I will type out all of the facts and all of the sources so that you may check them out for yourself.

[Mazdak]

China is Socialist. Barely. It is semi capitalist. Not the greatest example of Socialist achievement.

your ignorance on the topic ("whatever same shit") shows you have no clue what you are talking about. Learn your history and philosophy before making such ignorant assumptions.

[kelvin90701]

Quote: from CrazyPete on 2:45 am on Mar. 25, 2003
Good for you. But a socialist economy would not be. That makes this entire arguement about a 'flaw' empty and lacking any backbone.


Your previous post that tried to disarm my orginal post:

"I know that does not answer your pratical question, but it answers a theoritical one."- Crazy Pete

Your just guessing.

[kelvin90701]

capitalists really only care about statistics and numbers, not the living conditions of the people. Since they do not want to hear about the condition of the human being in socialist countries, it has come to a battle of who spends and produces more.


From all the communist countries that I am aware of, they all had pretty lousy living conditions, unless you were a party member. The walls and machineguns were there to keep them in not keep us out.

[kelvin90701]

Quote: from man in the red suit on 4:17 am on Mar. 25, 2003
by the way to all you cappies, if you would like to look at the same sources that i used for the information, I can give you the name of the books.

USA/USSR a political power

NIKITA KHRUSCHEV a biography by Roy Medvedev (hope i did not butcher the name)

A study of the Soviet Union

Socialism : It's theoretical roots and modern day practice

Communism: " "

now I know that is vague however I have more sources and that the right names and authors included lol. Just wait untiol wednesday and I will type out all of the facts and all of the sources so that you may check them out for yourself.


That is a list. Not a proof.

[Chiak47]

Yes and all the reds on this here board have fantasies of being at the top of the commie food chain.

IT DOES NOT WORK LIKE THAT.

the walls man he spoke of the walls.

Off to the gulags we go.

Anyone ever watch Hogans Heroes?
I feel like I'm in a camp run by dummies..

(Edited by Chiak47 at 5:20 am on Mar. 25, 2003)

[kelvin90701]

Sorry, but were guilty of getting a little off the thread. I count myself most guilty of them all.

" I ask the Communist to educate me on this one. I really don't understand why a Communist country has never out produced a capitalist one per capita or per country? " - orginal post

[kelvin90701]

Quote: from CrazyPete on 2:04 am on Mar. 25, 2003
There is a flaw in this arguement Kelvin (the original). The purpose of communism is not competition, so one would produce what is needed and would not worry to much about surplus.



Did a communist economy ever have a surplus? A surplus in any industry. The communist economies are famous for rationing.

[kelvin90701]

Sorry you did promise on Weds. I await you post.


(Edited by kelvin90701 at 1:38 am on Mar. 26, 2003)

[kelvin90701]

Quote: from sc4r on 2:32 am on Mar. 25, 2003
[quote]Quote:

Why the obsession with production volume.

(Edited by sc4r at 2:42 am on Mar. 25, 2003)


Ever hear of a 5 year plan? Those things are obsessed with production volume.

[man in the red suit]

Quote: from kelvin90701 on 5:19 am on Mar. 25, 2003

Quote: from man in the red suit on 4:17 am on Mar. 25, 2003
by the way to all you cappies, if you would like to look at the same sources that i used for the information, I can give you the name of the books.

USA/USSR a political power

NIKITA KHRUSCHEV a biography by Roy Medvedev (hope i did not butcher the name)

A study of the Soviet Union

Socialism : It's theoretical roots and modern day practice

Communism: " "

now I know that is vague however I have more sources and that the right names and authors included lol. Just wait untiol wednesday and I will type out all of the facts and all of the sources so that you may check them out for yourself.


That is a list. Not a proof.


I said to give me a fucking minute you impatient bastard! :) anyway here are my sources, they are proof as they have been recorded and confimed by both American and Soviet governments. I will split up this post into two, first I will give you the sources, then the facts.

sources:

1.) Forman, James D.

Socialism; it's theoretical roors and present day development New York. Franklin Watts inc. 1992

2.) Forman James D.

Communism; it's theoretical roots and present day development New York. franklin watts inc 1992

3.) Abiegniew Brezinski
Samuel P. Huntington

Political Power: USA/USSR. New York 1978

4.) William Foster
Frances E. Walter
Maurice Ries

Towards Soviet America Balboa Island, california 1961

5.) Marcuse, Herbert

Soviet Marxism: a critical analysis New York 1961

7.) V. Adoratsky
Karl Marx
Frederick engels

Karl Marx's selected works New York 1957

8.) E.M Primakov
A.I. vlasov

What's What in World Politics progress publishers, Moscow 1987


9.) Gorbachev, Mikhail

Perestroika; A new thinking for a new country Harper Publishers, New York 1987

10.) Medvedev, roy

Khruschev anchor press/double day publishers garden city, New York 1983


11.) Sofinsky, N.N

The Land of Soviets progress Publishers Moscow, 1987

[kelvin90701]

That is still a list. A list takes the form:

1) Item a
2) Item b
3) bread
4) milk
5) cheese

A proof takes the form of:

Statement/Thesis
Evidence
Argument.
Conclusion.

[man in the red suit]

ok, now the facts. I will get more later but here are a few for now.

[list]

the nationalisation process creates larger, more coordinated units which have made for greater standardization and efficiency

thirteen percent of the national income as opposed to 6 percent in the united states is devoted to welfare. Parents recieve $200 upon birth of a child, and almost $200 dollars a year for his maintenence until he reaches the age of 16. His vitamins, vaccinations, and all medical care are free, as is his chooling which includes meals and books. free employment service is available, along with unemployment insurance and free legal aid. Low-cost loans are avilable to anyone who wants to build a house.

the soviet Union has over 67% literacy since the Russian monarch. there are more doctors and engineers than there are in the U.S.

The USSR has more agricultural and nonagricultural employment than does the US.

38,900,000 -agricultural-USSR
4,946,000-agricultural-USA

65,600,000-nonagricultural-USSR
63,863,000-nonagricultural-USA

In 1931, while the soviet Union was advancing its general industrial production 21% that of the capitalist world declined on an average of 25% Since 1928 russian industrial production has increased 86% and that of the capitalist world has fallen 29% While the national income of the USSR increased 14% in 1931, the general drop in capitalist countries ran from 15% to 20%

At the end of the USSR's first five year plan, the record stood, in percentages of accomplishment yearly of the plan's proposed quotes of industrial output: 1929-106%, 1930- 107%, 1931- 113%.

Russian industrial production leaps ahead at an average increase of 22% to 25% per year, whereas the best average achieved by the US was from 1870 to 1880-8.3%

Mongolia, a country of vitually total illiteracy in the not so distant past, has at present approxamately the same number of students attemding institutions of higher learning as Japan or France.

In 1973-1986 industrial production in the USSR grew approxamately by 85%(in the capitalist countries less than 35%)The socialist community has acquired the highest industrial potential in the world to outstrip any of the 3 power centres of the present capitalist powers (USA, Japan, Capitalist europe)

Notably, throughout 1950-1986. Industrial production in the socialist countries has increased 18.5 times whereas that in the capitalist world only by times

farm production in the USSR had risen by 20% between 1952 and 1955, and the income of collective farmers had doubled

in the USSR, house buildings had increased markedly, and the availability of services had expanded, along with the production of consumer goods.

[man in the red suit]

Quote: from kelvin90701 on 1:57 am on Mar. 27, 2003
That is still a list. A list takes the form:

1) Item a
2) Item b
3) bread
4) milk
5) cheese

A proof takes the form of:

Statement/Thesis
Evidence
Argument.
Conclusion.


I gave you your evidence which is the only part of proof, a thesis and argument are not parts of legitimate proof they are merely the things you need to find proof for!

you may draw your own conclusion which I believe will be no different than it was before.

[kelvin90701]

Let me offer you some advice:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/bellesiles.html

By no means do accuse you of telling a lie. I am trying to put this as respectfull as possible with the scope of this media.

The evidence you submit needs to available for peer review, just like Micahel Bellesiles. If you can not offer your evidence for review, then it is worthless. There is a lot of generalization on this site, I am guilty of it too. If the playing field of debate is based on generalization, then peers who read the thread can decide from themselves which side holds logic better. Here you present a list that is not available for peer review. From the authorship of your list, I can already tell it is not quite unbiased.

I offered you an arguement with evidence supported from Yahoo!

[man in the red suit]

Quote: from kelvin90701 on 2:25 am on Mar. 27, 2003
Let me offer you some advice:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/bellesiles.html

By no means do accuse you of telling a lie. I am trying to put this as respectfull as possible with the scope of this media.

The evidence you submit needs to available for peer review, just like Micahel Bellesiles. If you can not offer your evidence for review, then it is worthless. There is a lot of generalization on this site, I am guilty of it too. If the playing field of debate is based on generalization, then peers who read the thread can decide from themselves which side holds logic better. Here you present a list that is not available for peer review. From the authorship of your list, I can already tell it is not quite unbiased.

I offered you an arguement with evidence supported from Yahoo!

I'll be back to debate some more but at the moment I am having trouble understanding what you're asking from me.

[kelvin90701]

Quote: from man in the red suit on 3:25 am on Mar. 27, 2003

Quote: from kelvin90701 on 2:25 am on Mar. 27, 2003
Let me offer you some advice:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/bellesiles.html

By no means do accuse you of telling a lie. I am trying to put this as respectfull as possible with the scope of this media.

The evidence you submit needs to available for peer review, just like Micahel Bellesiles. If you can not offer your evidence for review, then it is worthless. There is a lot of generalization on this site, I am guilty of it too. If the playing field of debate is based on generalization, then peers who read the thread can decide from themselves which side holds logic better. Here you present a list that is not available for peer review. From the authorship of your list, I can already tell it is not quite unbiased.

I offered you an arguement with evidence supported from Yahoo!

I'll be back to debate some more but at the moment I am having trouble understanding what you're asking from me.

Can I examine your evidence? The answer is no.

Can you examine my evidence? Yes, I got it from Yahoo.

Repeated for your ease without the argument:

Sweeden GDP = $20,353 http://biz.yahoo.com/ifc/se/

USA GDP = $32,042 http://biz.yahoo.com/ifc/us/

Or our GDP is 57% bigger per person than Sweeden.

[sc4r]

try Norways. Not that it proves anything; GDP is a measure of how much market value is being exchanged within an economy.

Since socialism does not value at everything at market rates it should be expected to score lower.

A pure communism no matter how good would have a GDP score of $0.

Even this leaves aside the fact that the USA is not capitalist. It is (like almost everywhere else in the west) a Liberal Democracy which could be categorised as a mixture of socialist and Capitalist ideas.

Perhaps you would like to try contrasting all of those countries with fairly healthy dollops of socialism (every western country and even the USA) against those without (almost all of Africa). I'm not dumb enough to say that it is socialism that is the only reason for the wests superiority but you apparently are simplistic enough or biased enough to want to ignore 3/4 of the data.



(Edited by sc4r at 7:33 am on Mar. 28, 2003)


(Edited by sc4r at 7:39 am on Mar. 28, 2003)

[synthesis]

pure communism no matter how good would have a GDP score of $0. Exactly. Some people forget that most of us intend to abolish money entirely.

[kelvin90701]

Quote: from sc4r on 7:30 am on Mar. 28, 2003
try Norways.

Norway: $24,005 http://biz.yahoo.com/ifc/no/ Socailist and democratic

France: $22,812 http://biz.yahoo.com/ifc/fr/ Socailist and democratic

Portugal: $14,766 http://biz.yahoo.com/ifc/pt/ Socailist and democratic

China: $4,091 http://biz.yahoo.com/ifc/cn/ (Even worse before free market reform)

Cuba: $1,692 http://biz.yahoo.com/ifc/cu/ (oye vey!)

Conclusion: Socialism SUCKS DUDE!

[Invader Zim]

Since when has france been socialist they are even more right wing than GB and thats one hell of a challange.

[kelvin90701]

Quote: from AK47 on 7:41 am on Mar. 28, 2003
Since when has france been socialist they are even more right wing than GB and thats one hell of a challange.

I stand corrected, they are very right wing with the taxation of a socialist state.

[sc4r]

Quote: from kelvin90701 on 7:40 am on Mar. 28, 2003

Quote: from sc4r on 7:30 am on Mar. 28, 2003
try Norways.

Norway: $24,005 http://biz.yahoo.com/ifc/no/ Socailist and democratic

France: $22,812 http://biz.yahoo.com/ifc/fr/ Socailist and democratic

Portugal: $14,766 http://biz.yahoo.com/ifc/pt/ Socailist and democratic

China: $4,091 http://biz.yahoo.com/ifc/cn/ (Even worse before free market reform)

Cuba: $1,692 http://biz.yahoo.com/ifc/cu/ (oye vey!)

Conclusion: Socialism SUCKS DUDE!


Norway $31,800 ; USA $36,300 [CIA factbook]
Norway $36,198 ; USA $34,637 [UN stats http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/soc...ial/inc-eco.htm (http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/social/inc-eco.htm)

Conclusion : As previously stated GDP is BS. It was nice to see you ignore the main points of the previous post. Very objective of you.

(Edited by sc4r at 8:35 am on Mar. 28, 2003)

[Reuben]

I have one statistic: the GDP of the Ukraine in 2000 (after nine yers of capitalism) was a third of the GDP in 1989. source = Alain Anderton - economics

[notyetacommie]

Reuben, The same goes with Russia- believe me. It is not to say anything about the unemployment rate, end to free education, end to free health care, end to security as such- no one is guaranteed against a robbery or violence or any other crime. It is not to say anything about corruption, about drugs flooding the country and dropping cultural level. All this is due to the transfer to capitalism.

[Pete]

Kelvin, the reason your question is not being answered is because in a communist society GDP is not all high and mighty. You must expand your mind from silly right-wing measures. A GDP/capita of 30 000 could mean almost anything. 1 man has 3 000 000 dollars a year, 100 are homeless/slaves/indentured servants.

I remember you accused us of being closeminded, but you cling to this arguement like a dead sheep. Try think out side the box you have created for your self, it will help you understand where we are coming from.

[kelvin90701]

Quote: from CrazyPete on 11:39 am on Mar. 28, 2003
Kelvin, the reason your question is not being answered is because in a communist society GDP is not all high and mighty. You must expand your mind from silly right-wing measures. A GDP/capita of 30 000 could mean almost anything. 1 man has 3 000 000 dollars a year, 100 are homeless/slaves/indentured servants.

The point I am trying to make with GDP is life in a socialist sytem is not a rosy as you may think, and life in a communist system is down right misserable.

I remember you accused us of being closeminded, but you cling to this arguement like a dead sheep. Try think out side the box you have created for your self, it will help you understand where we are coming from.

[kelvin90701]

Quote: from sc4r on 8:33 am on Mar. 28, 2003

Quote: from kelvin90701 on 7:40 am on Mar. 28, 2003

Quote: from sc4r on 7:30 am on Mar. 28, 2003
try Norways.

Norway: $24,005 http://biz.yahoo.com/ifc/no/ Socailist and democratic

France: $22,812 http://biz.yahoo.com/ifc/fr/ Socailist and democratic

Portugal: $14,766 http://biz.yahoo.com/ifc/pt/ Socailist and democratic

China: $4,091 http://biz.yahoo.com/ifc/cn/ (Even worse before free market reform)

Cuba: $1,692 http://biz.yahoo.com/ifc/cu/ (oye vey!)

Conclusion: Socialism SUCKS DUDE!


Norway $31,800 ; USA $36,300 [CIA factbook]
Norway $36,198 ; USA $34,637 [UN stats http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/soc...ial/inc-eco.htm (http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/social/inc-eco.htm)

Conclusion : As previously stated GDP is BS. It was nice to see you ignore the main points of the previous post. Very objective of you.

(Edited by sc4r at 8:35 am on Mar. 28, 2003)


Cute. I can make the same argument against you. Norway of course is not Communist, read orginal post.

[Pete]

Kelvin. GDP is not everything. It does not matter that Cuba has a low GDP since the cost of living is lower and the government provides many services. There is no need for money. Come on. Open your mind!

[kelvin90701]

Quote: from CrazyPete on 2:57 pm on Mar. 28, 2003
Kelvin. GDP is not everything. It does not matter that Cuba has a low GDP since the cost of living is lower and the government provides many services. There is no need for money. Come on. Open your mind!

That is great, more power to Cuba. Lets take a sample poll here. Who wants a Cuban life style post, a singe line "ME".

If you don't want a Cuban life style post "Keep your Cuban life style, but please keep sending those cigars"

[Pete]

Me.

Are you saying this in hope that all the cappies will say no, and therefore prove you right? I was showing you that GDP IS NOT THE ALMIGHTY GOD OF THE QUALITY OF LIFE AND THE MORE SOCIALIST A NATION IS THE LESS THIS MEASURE MEANS. Sorry for the caps you just are not reading that the main point is profit but people.

[Chiak47]

And American Big Tobacco is bad.

[kelvin90701]

Quote: from CrazyPete on 3:20 pm on Mar. 28, 2003
Me.


So your willing to adopt a life style where you can not afford to buy meat? It was a cold winter in the NW eh? The USA which has the cheapest fosil fuel, would be priced out of range for the average Cuban. Lots of people would have frozen to death if they adopted the GDP of a Cuban lifestyle.

[Pete]

Prove it.

[Chiak47]

Holy shit.

This never ends.

IT WAS YOUR THIRD GRADE TEACHERS JOB TO TEACH YOU THESE THINGS SO KELVIN WOULD NOT HAVE TO PROVE EVERYTHING.

Cubans make $1 a day-oil is around $26 a barrel.My grandparents spend $200 a month on heating oil.
Cubans would be around $170 short.
My grandparents would freeze if they were on the cubans budget.

[Pete]

My teachers tell me what Kelvin says is bullshit. So I ask him to prove it.

HOLY FUCKING SHIT CHIAK YOU REFUSE TO THINK FOR YOUR SELF!! WHAT A NEW CONCEPT!

Think about this. Cuba is warmer then Canada. They would not need as much heating oil. Think about this everything from sport health and education si free. Think about this, you do not need money when you are supplied with your basic needs by a caring government.

OPEN YOUR FUCKING MIND!! THIS MINDLESS SHIT YOU SPEW IS SICKENING!! FUCK OFF IF YOU WONT ATLEAST ATTEMPT TO UNDERSTAND OUR REASONING. Holy fuck.

[kelvin90701]

Quote: from CrazyPete on 3:59 pm on Mar. 28, 2003
Prove it.


"Food shortages top the list of complaints in most households." - ciponline

http://www.canfnet.org/News/archived/020711newsa.htm
http://www.ciponline.org/cubanew/cubainthe...120500grogg.htm (http://www.ciponline.org/cubanew/cubainthenews/newsarchives/december2000/ips120500grogg.htm)

If you can not afford food, then you can not afford to heat your home. If you live with a Cuban GDP in the USA NW this winter, you choose between freezing or starving.

[kelvin90701]

Hey Crazzzzzy Pete:

Still voting for food shortages? It is lunch time right now, I am home sick with the flu. I believe I am strong enough to drive myself somewhere for a big cheese burger with bacon. Can I get one of those in Cuba? I also just had my car detailed. The smell of leather is wonderfull. Those Cubans don't know what they are missing.

(Edited by kelvin90701 at 5:02 pm on Mar. 28, 2003)

[Hampton]

big cheese burger with bacon. Can I get one of those in Cuba? I also just had my car detailed. The smell of leather is wonderfull. Those Cubans don't know what they are missing.

So Cubans have never ate meat or sat in leather seats? Stupidity.

(Edited by Hampton at 2:11 am on Mar. 29, 2003)

[Chiak47]

So your willing to adopt a life style where you can not afford to buy meat? It was a cold winter in the NW eh? The USA which has the cheapest fosil fuel, would be priced out of range for the average Cuban. Lots of people would have frozen to death if they adopted the GDP of a Cuban lifestyle.

Pete,
Read the above quote
from Kelvin
He asked how would Americans in the cold survive with cuban pay and todays oil prices
Thats what you were asking proof for.
Thats why I screamed.

Thanks
Eric

[kelvin90701]

Hey Crazzzzzzy Pete:

Still vote for food shortages?

[Pete]

*sighs*

Your original post holds no ground.

I am sure Larissa can rebute your false statements. She used to live in Cuba until her visa expired.

How many people do not have houses in America? The differences in Cuban society are smaller than those in Amiercan society. Everything you can claim about Cuba I can claim about your great nation. So please, cut the shit.

[kelvin90701]

Quote: from CrazyPete on 3:20 pm on Mar. 28, 2003
Me.


Sorry to stick you with a cattle prod, but it must be done to convert you into a capitalist.

This is not false:

"Food shortages top the list of complaints in most households." - ciponline

http://www.canfnet.org/News/archived/020711newsa.htm
http://www.ciponline.org/cubanew/cubainthe...120500grogg.htm (http://www.ciponline.org/cubanew/cubainthenews/newsarchives/december2000/ips120500grogg.htm)

I am willing to accept that ciponline has told a bold face lie and I am an unwilling believer. Prove to me that ciponline has written a false statement.

[kelvin90701]

Just to jar your memory:


Quote: from kelvin90701 on 6:54 pm on Mar. 30, 2003

Quote: from CrazyPete on 3:20 pm on Mar. 28, 2003
Me.


Sorry to stick you with a cattle prod, but it must be done to convert you into a capitalist.

This is not false:

"Food shortages top the list of complaints in most households." - ciponline

http://www.canfnet.org/News/archived/020711newsa.htm
http://www.ciponline.org/cubanew/cubainthe...120500grogg.htm (http://www.ciponline.org/cubanew/cubainthenews/newsarchives/december2000/ips120500grogg.htm)

I am willing to accept that ciponline has told a bold face lie and I am an unwilling believer. Prove to me that ciponline has written a false statement.

[Pete]

Let me ask you why this is occuring. Could it be an embargo by a meanspirited neighbour? Cuba is in almost complete isolation because of a bully. I have talked to Larissa about cuba a few times and she speaks from experience and tells me that what you say is a virtual lie, but of course all lies have some truth. Americans are starving. Probaly more people in America do not have proper helath care then are in cuba as a whole.

Good luck converting anyone from communism. something about our ideology called giving a damn about other people makes it impossible for us to revert to your selfish system. i suggest you stop trying, it would be more logical than fighting a war with a corrupt ideology.

[kelvin90701]

Quote: from CrazyPete on 7:17 pm on Mar. 30, 2003
Let me ask you why this is occuring. Could it be an embargo by a meanspirited neighbour? Cuba is in almost complete isolation because of a bully. I have talked to Larissa about cuba a few times and she speaks from experience and tells me that what you say is a virtual lie, but of course all lies have some truth. Americans are starving. Probaly more people in America do not have proper helath care then are in cuba as a whole.

Good luck converting anyone from communism. something about our ideology called giving a damn about other people makes it impossible for us to revert to your selfish system. i suggest you stop trying, it would be more logical than fighting a war with a corrupt ideology.

The embargo is mean spirited, but it does not prevent Cuba from trading with Communist friends. 50 years of trading and aid from the communist world has not done much improvement to Cuba. Why do all of the Communist countries suffer from an embargo. The embargo goes both ways, free markets are not allowed to trade with other Communist systems. Why then has free markets flourished under embargos and Communist economies grind to a halt? Should trade with communist brothers be enough?

[Pete]

Cuba has been congradualted by the IMF and WB for doing its best without forgien aid. And it is laughable that you think Batista was better for the average Cuban than Castro is.

[kelvin90701]

Quote: from CrazyPete on 1:50 am on Mar. 31, 2003
Cuba has been congradualted by the IMF and WB for doing its best without forgien aid. And it is laughable that you think Batista was better for the average Cuban than Castro is.

Huh? Please find the post where I say, "Cubans did better before Castro."

It is laughable that you insult an argument that you have made for me.

[kelvin90701]

Hey Pete:

Still asking you? Still vote for food shortages?

[hazard]

Your original premise is flawed.

The USSR WON the SPACE RACE.
The USSR WON the ARMS RACE.

Both were based on raw production.
Communists always outproduce capitalist nations on matters of importance.

GNP is capitalist propaganda. It is based on wasteful overproduction. It is grossly inflated because a capitalist country don't just produce "pain medicine", it produces Tylenol and Advil and Aspirin and Ibuprofen and so on and ON AND ON AND ON. This tamplate is applied to everything. Capitalist produce 10 times what they need under the doctine of competition, overinflate the prices to compensate and then claim they produce more. Just look at the waste figures. Thats the truth.

[kelvin90701]

Quote: from hazard on 3:31 am on April 3, 2003
Your original premise is flawed.

The USSR WON the SPACE RACE.
The USSR WON the ARMS RACE.

Both were based on raw production.
Communists always outproduce capitalist nations on matters of importance.

GNP is capitalist propaganda. It is based on wasteful overproduction. It is grossly inflated because a capitalist country don't just produce "pain medicine", it produces Tylenol and Advil and Aspirin and Ibuprofen and so on and ON AND ON AND ON. This tamplate is applied to everything. Capitalist produce 10 times what they need under the doctine of competition, overinflate the prices to compensate and then claim they produce more. Just look at the waste figures. Thats the truth.

Ok I conceed those two points, if you conceed one.

Except one matter of importance, FOOD.

Don't ask me to prove it. It was a commie in this thread that already admitted it.

[kelvin90701]

Oh what the hell, I'll prove it.

"in 1985, for example, 94 percent of Soviet grain imports were from the noncommunist world, with the United States supplying 14.1 million tons. "

http://www.1upinfo.com/country-guide-study...t-union357.html (http://www.1upinfo.com/country-guide-study/soviet-union/soviet-union357.html)

[notyetacommie]

Chiak47:Cubans make $1 a day-oil is around $26 a barrel.My grandparents spend $200 a month on heating oil.
Cubans would be around $170 short.
My grandparents would freeze if they were on the cubans budget.


So that's $30-31 a month? I live in Russia under intended capitalism now and I make $300 a month for my family-that's around $100 per person. Only three times as much. In Siberia. I guess I should have died out a long time ago. See, in the Soviet times all these expences were paid for by the government, so that people never really had to bother.
The government also distributed apartments. Now that the capitalism is here few people can afford a $15000 apartment, working as hard and even harder than back in the 70s and 80s. In fact, it will take my family to save for more than 4 years my current salary NOT EATING ANYTHING to have a place to live in. That is, a 1-room apartment. It is not a one-bedroom apartment that you have in USA, that's a single room, a toilet and a kitchen.
To rent an apartment costs more than $100 a month, this leaves us with $200. Divide it by three and you'll get around $66.6 per person. In a country where nothing is free any more. Where everything great was built during the Soviet times.
This salary of $300 is also considered to be a lot of money by the majority of the population. Yet we have 18 billioneers and a hundred or two millioneers. They mostly come from the extracting industries that exploit the Earth interiour that used to belong to all the people, these billioneers also use the equipment that used to belong to all the people and that they actually haven't built or invested in the production of.
There are lots and lots and lots of flaws of capitalism as it is, buddy. It is very convenient for you to concentrate on the flaws of communism and to say nothing of the flaws of capitalism. Why? Maybe because you feel uncomfortable about the money you've maid exploiting others?

[notyetacommie]

Food. I can tell you, Kelvin. I've lived under communists. I know what Russian climate is. I know the history of my country.
So, food. Are you referring to the 20-30s? Or 70-80s?
Yes, there were famines back in the 20-30. Yes, people ate badly during the WWII time- you may guess why.
Starting from early 50s, the consuming of food has seen a sharp rase. I personally ate better food than I am now. And the food was far less expensive.
Now, during the capitalist "shock therapy" that was advised by the Harvard University economists and that lead to 1998 default, each year around a million of Russians die due to malnutrition, while in the farms people have to slaughter cows to pay their electricity debts. Milions of orphans and even kids with a family are out in the streets begging. That is what I would like to point out to you when you touch on the food. Did the Harvard economists do it on purpose? Did they scheme this outcome intentionally? Or because they are still blind to what capitalism really is about?

[hazard]

calvin:

why do you keep mentioning food shortages?

could it be because you have been overwhelmed by capitalist propaganda? probably

last time I checked the only people starving were those forced to live on the streets in the good ole usa

and while we're here, lets take another shot at the capitalist system

HOUSING

if they're such wizzes of production, why the hell can't they house all of their people?

[hazard]

pete:

you're absolutely right about the conversion factor, there is no going back. its like being blind, then are miraculously given sight. no sane person can ever return their vision once it is theirs. voluntarily, at least.

[Show me the Money]

Kelvin:
doesn't matter..
:cool:

[IHP]

Just in regards to the average household income. You do realize that America has quite a few extremely wealthy people and they would be factored in, therefore the average goes up when one man has fifty billion dollars.

And before you go on "prodding" me here are the stats to show poverty in America.

Within the governmental document by Heather Boushy, "The Needs of the Working Poor": "37 million Americans struggle to survive day to day."

But wait hang on:In "Hardships in America" another governmental document. it has 10.1% of Americans in critical hardship, and 28.4% in very serious hardship.

And here. in "The State of Working America" 12.6% in critical hardship (defined as having insufficient food to eat, not having housing) and 28.8% in serious hardship (defined as constant worry over every meal, possessing very poor standard housing, but not able to pay for utilites, or other
necessities.)

So there are some stats. They don't prove beyond doubt that you are wrong, but they simply show that your "average income" statistic doesn't prove anything.

--IHP

[kelvin90701]

Quote: from hazard on 9:12 am on April 3, 2003
calvin:

why do you keep mentioning food shortages?

could it be because you have been overwhelmed by capitalist propaganda? probably

last time I checked the only people starving were those forced to live on the streets in the good ole usa

and while we're here, lets take another shot at the capitalist system

HOUSING

if they're such wizzes of production, why the hell can't they house all of their people?


"Mental Illness: Approximately 22% of the single adult homeless population suffers from some form of severe and persistent mental illness (U.S. Conference of Mayors, 2001).

There are families on the street, runaways, people physically unable to work, etc. It has more to do with social ills and tragedy than lack of production in the USA.

[hazard]

kelvin:

when mental illness is a trillion dolalr industry, one has to wonder what the true motivation behind the industry is

there are two biggies

1)the manufacturing and prescription of unnecessary drugs for "illnesses" (ie. add, depression, etc) for the sole purpose of profit
2)secondary effects upon production value, ala "Brave New World", where happy workers are productive workers and so happiness is prescribed in a bottle

and 22% is a shocking minority anyway. based upon my arguments this low percentage seems to validate my reasoning that mental illness is defined by the ruling class as a means to furthur exploit their slaves

that means that housing, as a capitalist problem, needs to be readressed outside the context of "mental illness"

[kelvin90701]

The homeless population is 22% mentally ill. Then there are runaways, single mothers running from abuse, drug addicts, physically disabled, etc. It is about personal tragedy, not lack of production.

The starving in communist countries IS about lack of production.

BTW, those scientist that won the space race? They were Germans captured in WW2.

"From the first German V-2 weapons collected by Korolev and his team in 1946 came Russia's first large liquid fuel missile, the R-1, which was first flown in 1948 (Quite surprisingly, Korolev was commissioned in the Red Army after his release from prison. He then headed a group to search the German factories for their rockets and bring back V-2 rocket scientists and engineers) (Hartford)"

http://faculty.erau.edu/ericksol/courses/s...03/korolev.html (http://faculty.erau.edu/ericksol/courses/sp425/s2003/korolev.html)

(Edited by kelvin90701 at 6:31 am on April 5, 2003)

[Anonymous]

1)the manufacturing and prescription of unnecessary drugs for "illnesses" (ie. add, depression, etc) for the sole purpose of profit


I believe depression (bipolar disease) is defined as a form of mental illness. Given there are times when doctors unnecessarily prescribe drugs such as prozac and ritalin, many of those who are take these drugs need them. And as for your little remark about companies producing drugs "for the sole purpose of proft", I ask you, who fucking cares! Both the producer and the consumer benefit.


2)secondary effects upon production value, ala "Brave New World", where happy workers are productive workers and so happiness is prescribed in a bottle

This is nothing but pure speculation. Prozac doesn't turn people into mindless drones. Not to mention all drugs must be approved by the FDA before being released into the market.

[sc4r]

"From the first German V-2 weapons collected by Korolev and his team in 1946 came Russia's first large liquid fuel missile, the R-1, which was first flown in 1948 (Quite surprisingly, Korolev was commissioned in the Red Army after his release from prison. He then headed a group to search the German factories for their rockets and bring back V-2 rocket scientists and engineers) (Hartford)"

http://faculty.erau.edu/ericksol/courses/s...03/korolev.html (http://faculty.erau.edu/ericksol/courses/sp425/s2003/korolev.html)

(Edited by kelvin90701 at 6:31 am on April 5, 2003)


WHAT !!!, are you seriously now telling us that it is the ethnicity of the individuals that counts ?!!! Great stuff I guess we can almost completely kiss off american sucess then as so much of it was also due to German, English, Japanese and multiple others from outside america.

That is a completely ridiculuous argument whose only mereit is that it isnt quite the most absurd desparate attempt to find a way to slag off socialism hat you boys regularly try. Do you ever analyse a situation and tell it like it is ?

[kelvin90701]

Quote: from sc4r on 7:12 am on April 5, 2003


"From the first German V-2 weapons collected by Korolev and his team in 1946 came Russia's first large liquid fuel missile, the R-1, which was first flown in 1948 (Quite surprisingly, Korolev was commissioned in the Red Army after his release from prison. He then headed a group to search the German factories for their rockets and bring back V-2 rocket scientists and engineers) (Hartford)"

http://faculty.erau.edu/ericksol/courses/s...03/korolev.html (http://faculty.erau.edu/ericksol/courses/sp425/s2003/korolev.html)

(Edited by kelvin90701 at 6:31 am on April 5, 2003)


WHAT !!!, are you seriously now telling us that it is the ethnicity of the individuals that counts ?!!! Great stuff I guess we can almost completely kiss off american sucess then as so much of it was also due to German, English, Japanese and multiple others from outside america.

That is a completely ridiculuous argument whose only mereit is that it isnt quite the most absurd desparate attempt to find a way to slag off socialism hat you boys regularly try. Do you ever analyse a situation and tell it like it is ?

The captured German scientist in CCCP Russia were not a product of communism.