"Communism is the greatest evil unleashed on humanity" (1 Viewer)

[tinfoilhat]

You missed my sentence immediately after that where I clarified what I meant

No, it's also a bad idea cos central planning is impossible. More accurately speaking, rational economic calculation is impossible under central planning.

that's your "clarification"... so central planning is impossible because ration economic calculation is impossible?

whatever you said made no sense other than "central planning is impossible because." either way you still said it was impossible
this is a fruitless argument anyway


instead why don't you humour me and explain how communist theory doesn't work.
i think you'll find it actually does work

 

[SylviaB]

Man's ego is the fountainhead of human progress.

/thread

 

[sdent40]

tinfoilhat, my point here is yes you could "try central planning", but it wouldn't be very effective. In the same way that "yes you could try tippy toe walking to brisbane from sydney" but it wouldn't be as effective as getting on a plane or driving in your car.

 

[tinfoilhat]

actually stalin's central planning was very effective. it allowed him to create a police state and industrialise a country 100yrs behind within the decade. how the USSR industrialised was, however, ineffective, but stalin's leadership definitely wasn't ineffective

 

[moll.]

actually stalin's central planning was very effective. it allowed him to create a police state and industrialise a country 100yrs behind within the decade. how the USSR industrialised was, however, ineffective, but stalin's leadership definitely wasn't ineffective

But Stalin's Russia didn't industrialise. Or at least not from zero to hero as most people seem to think. They had modest economic growth of about 5% at best. Not 8-10% figures for growth that they published. All the facts and figures were inflated because the business managers and government accountants were so afraid of not making the unrealistic targets they were set.
The only reasons they did appear to industrialise was because, whilst the rest of the world lost up to 10% of their GDP in the entirety of the Depression, Russia was insulated because they didn't trade and because the entire labour force was made to work like slaves, which managed to raise production massively. Standards of living, however, dropped like a stone.

 

[tinfoilhat]

But Stalin's Russia didn't industrialise. Or at least not from zero to hero as most people seem to think. They had modest economic growth of about 5% at best. Not 8-10% figures for growth that they published. All the facts and figures were inflated because the business managers and government accountants were so afraid of not making the unrealistic targets they were set.
The only reasons they did appear to industrialise was because, whilst the rest of the world lost up to 10% of their GDP in the entirety of the Depression, Russia was insulated because they didn't trade and because the entire labour force was made to work like slaves, which managed to raise production massively. Standards of living, however, dropped like a stone.

yes but even a "modest growth" of 5% was very significant jump particularly considering russia's crippled state post-WWI.

they didn't just appear to industralise, they actually did industrialise and rapidly. the problem was that the soviet economy grew too rapidly and then when it was met with new demands during the cold war it could not keep up. furthermore, because of stalin's rigid structure and centrally planning it was not well placed to switch to a new form of investment in the 1960s/70s

 

[moll.]

yes but even a "modest growth" of 5% was very significant jump particularly considering russia's crippled state post-WWI.

they didn't just appear to industralise, they actually did industrialise and rapidly. the problem was that the soviet economy grew too rapidly and then when it was met with new demands during the cold war it could not keep up. furthermore, because of stalin's rigid structure and centrally planning it was not well placed to switch to a new form of investment in the 1960s/70s

Actually, a 5% growth rate in a post-war period is pretty pitiful. Look at Japan after World War II. It went from a ruin to the second-largest economy in the space of two and a half decades. In the late 50's it had a growth rate of 10% per year.
After waging total war, everyone's growth rates are huge. It's called recovery. It happens no matter which ideology your government holds.

The problem wasn't that it grew too quickly. The problem was that it stagnated in some areas while exploding in others.
Steel production rose to previosuly unknown heights, such that just before the Great Patriotic War they were the worlds second largest producer. But their manufacturing industry didn't use all of it. Manufacturing requires more capital investment than heavy industry and the maufacturing was only aimed at further expanding the primary industry, which exacerbated the problem, or was military in nature, of which there is only so much that the government can afford. There were no automobile or consumer manufacturing industries.
So whilst people starved and wallowed in pitiful conditions, the steel producers continued to make more of their produce, only for it to go into storage.

 

[Progressive]

What Tinfoilhat said is correct. Moll we know your the Mole. Ofcourse there was growth huge and rapid growth. .................Labor party for the workers yeah Labor trade union..........DO YOU NEED TO BE ORGANISED.

 

[tinfoilhat]

Actually, a 5% growth rate in a post-war period is pretty pitiful. Look at Japan after World War II. It went from a ruin to the second-largest economy in the space of two and a half decades. In the late 50's it had a growth rate of 10% per year.
After waging total war, everyone's growth rates are huge. It's called recovery. It happens no matter which ideology your government holds.

The problem wasn't that it grew too quickly. The problem was that it stagnated in some areas while exploding in others.

no but i'm not talking about russia compared to other countries in terms of it's industrialisation, i'm talking about self improvement. it went from crippled agrarian shit hole to WWII winner

yes the economy stagnated come 1970 (even earlier actually) - all these problems are linked directly to stalin. his centrally planned economy was too rigid and eventually led to a crippling bureacracy and inflexibility. it was because of stalin that such imbalance plagued the soviet economy after his death. yes, in the end they're producing shitloads of steel, for instance, because stalin favoured heavy industry. basically stalin was the architect of the failure of communism - which is the realist view. once the USSR becomes a 'superpower' and starts spending more and more on nukes and third world aid its economy can't cope and it falters and ultimately it collapsed.


hmm you seem to be coming from a more economic perspective whereas i'm more historial which could be why we're disagreeing on this... i'm not saying your facts, figures are wrong, i'm saying that the problem stemmed from stalin

 

[moll.]

Remind me again, what was the original problem we were debating?

 

[tinfoilhat]

haha i can't even remember, we just kept moving along different tangents

 

[moll.]

The point is, I disagree entirely with what you are saying, and similarities between our respective viewpoints are only coincidental!

 

[Lex152]

lol @ rsik argument.
At then the companies try to on sell their risk to charities and local governments etc...
MAnipulating the markets by creating lengthy contracts and false advice.

If you create a system of mutual manipulation then you allow yourself to be lead by the best grifters.

 

[gibbo153]

a boy in my class called kelvin, who is incredibly communist, was arguing with some guys about communism v democracy.

i said to him, hey kelvin, so you've lived in china and australia, which was better?

and he said, china easily

i said whys that.

and he said ok well before i even start, australia is just as communist as china is man

i asked why

he goes "well like there are some sports that like only men play and stuff!"

Remind me again, what was the original problem we were debating?

haha yeah. i read over the last page or two, and i couldn't discern any central topic that was being argued haha.

 

[moll.]

a boy in my class called kelvin, who is incredibly communist, was arguing with some guys about communism v democracy.

i said to him, hey kelvin, so you've lived in china and australia, which was better?

and he said, china easily

i said whys that.

and he said ok well before i even start, australia is just as communist as china is man

i asked why

he goes "well like there are some sports that like only men play and stuff!"

This is why I hate your grade. They're all either drug-addled teeny boppers or retarded geeks. Every other grade at least has a reasonable proportion of normal people in it.

 

[tommykins]

china is communist?

 

[moll.]

According to the Chinese Commuinist Party, yes.

 

[tommykins]

According to the Chinese Commuinist Party, yes.

Marx communist? I recall reading Zeigeists post and he was like 'china isn't communism'.

 

[moll.]

Oh, you were serious. I thought you were after the lols.
No, China isn't Communist. Economically it's a mixed economy, leaning more towards socialism than most other countries, but still quite capitalist. Politically it's just a one-party dictatorship, and nothing in Marx's works said that a Communist state has to be authoritarian. Quite the opposite in fact.

 

[tommykins]

Oh, you were serious. I thought you were after the lols.
No, China isn't Communist. Economically it's a mixed economy, leaning more towards socialism than most other countries, but still quite capitalist. Politically it's just a one-party dictatorship, and nothing in Marx's works said that a Communist state has to be authoritarian. Quite the opposite in fact.

yeah that's what i thought as well. lolz.