Miscellaneous News

LesAdieux said:

the guy is a fundamental socialist and a jihadi communist, I think he's proud of that.

Mao's China was just a large size North Korea, no more, no less.

today officially China is: socialism with Chinese characteristics; the other side of the coin is: capitalism with Chinese characteristics. market capitalism is the only game on earth, there's no alternative.

Click to expand...

What exactly is "market capitalism"? Can you give a definition of that term?

gelgoog said:

The major problem the Soviet system had was that the emphasis on central planning meant solving a lot of economic problems was hard or almost impossible. Also, if for whatever reason the political system dismissed some kind of technology for ideological reasons that could lead to reduced development in that area which could eventually have fatal consequences. For example Stalin was against 'cybernetics' research as he thought it was a waste of resources and this lead to a structural deficiency in computer research in the Soviet Union which had lasting consequences. Korolev was arrested and put into hard labor on a precious metals mine because the State considered his work on rocket powered airplanes a waste of resources as well.

Click to expand...

solarz said:

That was exactly my point. For various reasons, the Soviet Union refused to given up on the centrally planned economy model despite growing evidence that it was increasingly falling behind the West economically. That's what I call blind adherence to dogma.

Click to expand...

This is a good video IMHO, that touches upon the topics being discussed. Only 15 minutes long.

gelgoog said:

Except it was. Most citizens of the Soviet Union did not want it to collapse and the collapse was engineered by the elites in the Soviet Union who wanted to plunder the State's resources to enrich themselves. You could argue that their economy was less efficient, but it was still good enough to go by. There was a vast collapse in living standards in Russia after the collapse of the USSR. It led to decreased lifespans and higher mortality rates. The Russian economy took over a decade to recover to the levels of GDP/capita it had when the USSR collapsed.

Click to expand...

The truth is quite a bit more complicated than that. The nations that benefitted from the USSR, such as Kazakhstan, certainly didn't want it to collapse. On the other hand, many people in Russia were googly-eyed about the West and the Western political system.

You could blame the "elites", but that begs the questions, how did the Soviet Union become so fragile that a group of elites could engineer its collapse?

solarz said:

On the other hand, many people in Russia were googly-eyed about the West and the Western political system.

Click to expand...

And why do you think these people were "googly-eyed" about the West?

Its because the West was richer, they had better quality of life, better technologies, less restrictions on their private life etc.

So these people were right that they wanted the West's system as the Soviet system had utterly failed them. When western supermarkets were full of food and various goods, people in Soviet Unions had to wait in line to get rationed food.

Soviet Union has, rightfully, gone to the dustbin of the short lived "empires"

I hope no more Soviet Union style countries pop up with their failed system. Same for China as well, I hope it doesn't become another Soviet Union

solarz said:

Sure, let's talk about that.

I can answer your question in two ways. First the pedantic way, which is that the definition of Socialism doesn't say anything about preventing wealth accumulation. It only says that the means of production and of goods exchange should be owned or regulated by the community at large. In China's case, we went the route of regulation. I don't think anyone's figured out the whole ownership thing quite yet.

Click to expand...

I don't see any regulation by the community at large, definitely not more in China's system than in the West, probably less. If you think you see it, please elaborate.

solarz said:

Now for my personal thoughts on this matter, I believe that Socialism is about the struggle to lessen social inequality. However, at least in the case of the wealth gap, it cannot and should not be entirely removed. As I mentioned in a previous post, a wealth gap is instrumental in providing people with the motivation and ambition to become more productive.

Click to expand...

I'm with you in agreement so far.

solarz said:

The only time I see the wealth gap being actually removed is when society progresses to Communism.

Click to expand...

And as we saw, it was removed because there was no wealth.

solarz said:

In addition, the wealth gap itself is an imperfect reflection of other underlying problems in society.

Click to expand...

The wealth gap is a reflection of the natural differences in competence between human beings snowballed over decades of good ideas and the will to implement and take risks for them.

solarz said:

For example, it does not take into account social mobility. In both Capitalist and Socialist societies, social inequality is reduced when social mobility is high. The difference between the Capitalist and the Socialist society is that the Capitalist society focuses on generating wealth, and increased social mobility is a side-effect of that. In a Socialist society, the reduction of social inequality is the goal, and social mobility is a tool for achieving that goal.

Click to expand...

In that sense socialism is aiming for the low-hanging fruit. Just make everybody including society poor and you have achieved the goal of reducing social inequality. China clearly doesn't do this. China clearly built up its wealth as a top priority and in that endeavor, there were first periods of massively increased social inequality, then a slow tapering off. This is exactly showing China combining the best of both systems rather than adhering to any socialist ideals.

solarz said:

A good example of this is China's poverty alleviation program, where they don't just throw money at the poorest villages, but actually send social workers to those villages to support them making their lives better. For some families, this might mean helping keep their kids at school and teaching the parents the value of education. For other families, this might mean helping them raise some cattle and teaching them some basic business skills so they can generate revenue.

Click to expand...

Every country has poverty alleviation; China's just particularly competent at seeing it through. I don't see a connection to socialism.

solarz said:

On a related note, many Socialist values can also be found in Confucianism and Mohism. You certainly wouldn't be wrong calling China's model a uniquely Chinese system. That's why they call it Socialism with Chinese Characteristics!

Click to expand...

Ok, it's a name game. Once it drifts too far from socialism, I don't want to call it that but hey, people sell cauliflower bits as "cauliflower rice" even though it has no rice so whatever I guess.

voyager1 said:

And why do you think these people were "googly-eyed" about the West?

Its because the West was richer, they had better quality of life, better technologies, less restrictions on their private life etc.

So these people were right that they wanted the West's system as the Soviet system had utterly failed them. When western supermarkets were full of food and various goods, people in Soviet Unions had to wait in line to get rationed food.

Soviet Union has, rightfully, gone to the dustbin of the short lived "empires"

I hope no more Soviet Union style countries pop up with their failed system. Same for China as well, I hope it doesn't become another Soviet Union

Click to expand...

Shortages in late the USSR is an anti-Soviet myth propagated by the west. We don't accept US state department lies about China, we should not blindly believe the same lies told about other countries.

solarz said:

What exactly is "market capitalism"? Can you give a definition of that term?

Click to expand...

well, I can give a definition of market capitalism, and you can write ten books to list its defects, its failures… but still you cannot give a viable non-market, non-capitalism alternative.

canniBUS said:

Shortages in late the USSR is an anti-Soviet myth propagated by the west. We don't accept US state department lies about China, we should not blindly believe the same lies told about other countries.

Click to expand...

You can believe whatever you want.

I personally believe in my personal experiences. "No shortages. Anti-Soviet myth" isnt what I remember

Next time you spread your propaganda do it to people who haven't experienced the "great" Soviet Union. Ask anyone else who had also lived in the SU and he will tell you the same thing. Thank God the SU collapsed.

Hopefully no other country on earth will try to use the same failed system

Soon you'll see USA banning Xinjiang king crabs and whale meat

They gonna find a route to Xinjiang through the Royal Mongolian Navy

voyager1 said:

...
So these people were right that they wanted the West's system as the Soviet system had utterly failed them. When western supermarkets were full of food and various goods, people in Soviet Unions had to wait in line to get rationed food.

Click to expand...

Famines were a regular occurrence since Tsarist times and basically stopped in like 1947. Russia has a colder climate than the USA and bad harvests are way more common. The food shortages were solved with mechanization and more modern farming methods. The food shortages people associate with the later Soviet Union happened in the Gorbachev era after he inflated the ruble with massive money printing and fixed prices. Those shortages would have happened in any other country with hiperinflation. Farmers markets back then had plenty of food (people could sell their own produce grown in individual plots) but it was more expensive so people avoided them when possible.