Quote:You know full well that saying "I oppose it" on this board would achieve absolutely nothing in overthrowing global imperialism.
Quote:Cows eat grass, which is not a cereal crop.
Quote:And you neglect to mention here that the US, like any other country, also would have suffered from bad weather (e.g. the Dust Bowl in the 1930s). Therefore, according to your logic, their economic output should have been even higher than the Soviet Union's. You have also failed to compare the increase in Soviet agriculture yields with increases in the Soviet population.
Quote:Lol, the dialectics of a crop yield now?
Quote:The whole reason we are arguing about Soviet agriculture (which included animals and dairy products - lok it up) is because you said the USSR would have eclipsed the US economically if its agriculture sector hadn't suffered from weather abnormalities. You have deliberately neglected to post any data on Soviet husbandry or dairy having only focused on cereal crops (along with the fact you still think North Dakota is representative of the entire US). Therefore your conclusions are unreliable as you have not utilised the full data available.
Quote:That's not true, they eat grass only during a part of the year. The FAO report makes clear that meat production decreases after a bad crop, and also Soviet citizens usually eat less meat than US citizens and more cereals.
Quote:The dust bowl isn't sufficient I guess, since it only affected a small part of the territory. A serious drought would have been more dangerous.
Quote:Yet if you take the datas for North Dakota, you can see that North Dakota was affected by a decrease in productivity at the end of the 1940's and beginning of the 1950's. This also resulted, like in the USSR, in a decrease in exportations. Between 1950 and 1955, the US imported more than they exported.
Quote:Also there wasn't much differences between the Soviet population and the US population.
Quote:Yes, there is dialectics in everything, even in your brain.
Quote:Yes of course, and I should asko speak of fishery resources?
Quote:Moreover, you haven't provided any data. If you want to contradict me, it's not enough to say that I didn't provide enough data, because obviously I already have much.
Quote:What's your point?
Quote:And yet you say "bad weather" affected the whole of the Soviet Union - the largest country on earth at the time.
Quote:Obviously, but since we you were talking about the definition of the word "yield," I don't see how you have to involve dialectics in this.
Quote:Yes.
Quote:You were the one claiming that the USSR would have eclipsed the USA economically had it not been for a bit of bad weather which affected their agriculture. I'm asking you to provide data to back this up. The onus for evidence is on you.
Quote:Ands the whole reason we brought up the USSR was because I said that developed capitalist economies have a much better long-term track record than socialist economies. You came up with the stupid answer that the USSR was predicted to overtake the USA in the 1970s but didn't because of some bad weather (though bizarrely you still claim this as an example of Soviet economic superiority). Even if this were the case, the USA has had drought throughout its existence so it's hardly an excuse.
Quote:Most of the soil is impracticable due to permafrost, you should know that.
Quote:I said that the population were the same, growth included.
Quote:Why?
Quote:Datas have already been provided. You have the yield, you have the exportations and importations. I proved that the decrease in production was due to natural causes.
Quote:Bad weather was only one of the causes, I also cited the increase in weapon production as a cause.
Quote:Moreover, your conclusion that "capitalist economies have a much better long-term track" is pure sophism:
Quote:1 - For most of its existence, the Soviet Union had an excellent development and was close to overtake the USA, which mean that in a few years, socialism was able to transform a backward country as Russia in a superpower.
Quote:2 - Most socialist countries only lasted a few decades, so you can't tell what would have happened if they had won the war.
Quote:Now it's also clear that the Chinese model, which combines socialism with capitalism, is also stronger than pure capitalism, so obviously capitalism is weaker than socialism.
Quote:3 - In this discussion I explain why Soviet difficulties in the 1970's were due to cyclical and non-structural causes.
Quote:Any capitalist economy would have failed had the roles been reversed.
Quote:This conclusion can also be applied to North Korea.
Quote:But agricultural land is spread over a wider area so bad weather is less likely to affect a large area of cultivation.
Quote:Because fishing is part of agriculture.
Quote:Imports and exports are not yields. You provided no yield data for the US. You also haven't proven that any dips in Soviet yields were due to bad weather.
Quote:"Increase in weapon production" is very vague. Care to elaborate? Remember that the US had to spend loads on weapons too and they didn't collapse.
Quote:News flash: most developing countries who have just emerged from semi-feudalism or colonialism develop at a very quick pace, regardless of whether they are under capitalism or Soviet-style socialism (which wasn't proper socialism but that's another debate). As I said earlier, Cambodia's economic growth today is higher than that of the United States'. Does that mean Cambodia's economic foundation is better than America's?
Quote:No, China is a developing country and therefore seeing huge economic growth. The Chinese are at a very different stage of development than Europe or America and so their economy naturally looks very different. It also has the potential to grow much larger than most other countries.
Quote:What war?
Quote:No you didn't. You just showed there were dips in yields and simply assumed this was just due to the weather.
Quote:Define "failed." Also, capitalist countries have suffered bad weather in the past and they didn't collapse like the USSR did.
Quote:Did the US collapse due to the dust bowl?
Quote:North Korea only survives because China and some western NGOs give it aid. It lives off capitalist charity.
Quote:This isn't an answer. No colonized country became a superpower in 30 years. No colonized country became close to overtake the USA. This was only possible thanks to socialism.
Quote:I have already said that the development of India was worst than the development of China even though the two countries were quite alike after WWII.
Quote:History has proven the supremacy of socialism.
Quote:And you dare say that I don't prove what I say, but there your idea that China's economy is growing thanks to capitalism and not to socialism is completely arbitrary.
Quote:Did the USSR collapse due to the 1933 famine? No. But both the USSR and the USA were on the merge of collapse. The US bourgeoisie, because of the drought, because of the great depression, feared the revolution more than ever, and there is no doubt that, had this happened during the cold war, the USA would have collapsed.
Quote:Ahah, at first they didn't receive aid, and they had to cope with that. It is said that thousands died, yet North Korea is still there.
Quote:They survived mostly thanks to their fanatism, this is their strenght.
Quote:And I guess if the South survive, it's all thanks to the North's charity, which is kind enough not to atomise their enemy?
Quote:No, it was possible because Russia is huge with a massive population. Impossible to successfully invade and with vast natural and human resources. That's why China and India are also emerging powers
Quote:No, it was possible because Russia is huge with a massive population. Impossible to successfully invade and with vast natural and human resources. That's why China and India are also emerging powers. It's also part of the reason why North Korea will never be one of these powers.
Quote:Define "quite alike".
Quote:Are you blind? Socialism is currently lying in the gutter while capitalism reigns supreme!
Quote:Economists generally attribute much of China’s rapid economic growth to two main factors:
large-scale capital investment (financed by large domestic savings and foreign investment) and
rapid productivity growth
Quote:The famine in 1933 was focused in a particular area (generally the Ukraine but a few other areas too). Therefore, the effects were felt to a very great extent in these areas, but less so in others. Although the USSR never suffered famine again after 1946, the population as a whole began to fell the effects of an overall shortage of consumer goods.
Quote:Or maybe due to the fact that the military was kept fed and so a strong state apparatus could be kept in place. Also, starving people don't make good rebels.
Quote:So not committing civilian genocide is charity? Surely I could just say that North Korea survives because of US charity not to nuke them?
Quote:No country is impossible to invade. China had been occupied by Japan for years.
Quote:An "emerging power" isn't a superpower. Moreover China and India have much more population than the USSR had.
Quote:Quite alike = few differences.
Quote:Ahah, that was also true for Cromwell after his defeat, yet Cromwell had already proven the superiority of capitalism over feudalism.
Quote:Socialism is absolutely superior in all respects, ceteris paribus.
Quote:The fact that those countries were able to oppose the USA for so long is sufficient to prove the superiority of socialism.
Quote:That's not a point for you since it means that China is growing due to foreign investments. Foreign investment has nothing to do with capitalism,
Quote:under socialism you also have foreign investment.
Quote:China wouldn't be there today without the socialist structure.
Quote:Also I don't think that an economic analysis for the American congress can be trusted.
Quote:Once again you speak without giving any evidence. Actually I don't care, but it's funny that you dare ask for evidences every time I say a truth, while you don't do that yourself.
After the war, there was no famine because the USSR was able to import food rapidly and because they had bigger stocks than in 1933.
Quote:Yes, that wouldn't be more ridiculous than saying they survived thanks to US charity.
Quote:That's not a point for you since it means that China is growing due to foreign investments. Foreign investment has nothing to do with capitalism
Quote:But foreign investment in China operates under a capitalist system. Otherwise the capitalist foreigners wouldn't invest.
Quote:They wouldn't be at the stage of opening themselves up to capitalism were it not for the socialist structure?
Quote:Also, India did have some very left-leaning policies during the Cold War and was more pro-Soviet than anything. Nationalised industries, five year plans, centrally planned indsutrialisation.
Quote:The Americans are huge investors in China. Why would they lie about this?
Quote:Charity is generally considered to be the act of giving something
Quote:Yes and what? Any country has to invest in other countries in order to trade, socialist countries, capitalist countries. The USSR invested in many countries, but the USSR is dead, so China has no choice but to trade with capitalist countries, or become like North Korea.
Quote:China already opened itself to capitalism in the 1920's, they even opened themselves to Japanese capitalism.
Quote:That failed, China was saved by socialism.
Quote:So without capitalism, China wouldn't be opening itself to capitalism, it would be a devastated capitalist country with many rebellions like in India, much poverty, a limited access to education and health.
Quote:That's not true. Planification and nationazliation isn't socialism. There was the same in France. It's much more progressive than wild capitalism, but it's not socialism.
Quote:Then Nehru allied the USA against China, the Communist party was in the opposition.
Quote:There is a strong communist influence in India, and the most developed state is a communist state, Kerala. One more example of the failure of capitalism and supremacy of communism.
Quote:China was opened up to capitalism (western and Japanese) before then. Japanese aggression was obviously a problem but the communists wouldn't have faired any better against the Japanese than the Guomindang.
Quote:Saved from what? China was saved from Japan by their own efforts and their US allies.
Quote:Its predecessor, the Guomindang, had to deal with independent warlords, a communist insurgency and Japanese aggression. No wonder they never got the chance to implement Sun Yat Sen's reforms.
Quote:This doesn't even make sense. Without capitalism, china woudn't be opening itself to capitalism, it would be a capitalist country?
Quote:What?
Quote:I don't think that's due to the communists. Also, from my research, the government of Kerala has alternated between communist rule and Indian National Congress rule ever since the 1980s thus suggesting that at least half of this "development" is thanks to the bourgeois party. Plus, while things like literacy and life expectancy are high, the economy is poor. I wouldn't expect local communist rule under a national bourgeois government to have too great an impact; especially in a developing country like India.
Quote:If that was true the KMT wouldn't have lost the war.
Quote:Once again you forget the Soviet allies, you're really on the imperialist side.
Quote:Really funny. So when a socialist state fails, that's because of socialism is no good while capitalism is supposed to be stronger. But when capitalism fails, that's not because of capitalism but because "independent warlords, a communist insurgency and Japanese aggression". Totally dishonest.
Quote:What what? Are you discovering the truth?
Quote:India is a federal state with a lot of autonomy for local governments. Communists took control of Kerala in 1957. It was one of the poorest states in India, but at the beginning of the 1990's, it was the 11th state in terms of per capita GDP, and the 4th state in terms of per capita consumption. The state was lost by the communists and during 10 years, the capitalist right tried to break this progressive structure. Their record was so disastrous that the Communists took over the state in 2006.
Quote:It's funny to see how your anticommunism leads you to support imperialism in any situations: Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Mali maybe, North Korea, and now Kerala... and you pretend to be a Marxist?
Quote:How so?
Quote:Ok yes the Soviets helped end it quicker, but do you really think the Japanese were in much state to carry on? The US was nuking them and on the verge of invading Japan itself.
Quote:I never said that, I simply pointed out why China under the GMD didn't experience some of the stability and growth that Maoist China did.
Quote:"Then Nehru allied the USA against China, the Communist party was in the opposition" doesn't make sense.
Quote:Well good for them. It's not like I oppose the Kerala communists. All I'm saying that they are ultimately going to be limited in what they can achieve under the current system. They are also going to be limited by what they achieve by India's current level of economic and social development. Also this appears to be something of a phenomenon. Why are the communists not repeating this in West Bengal?
Quote:It's funny how you seem to resort to petty sniping. I simply support the most progressive option available
Quote:Anyway, I'm bored with thread. We stopped talking about North Korea ages ago.
Quote:The KMT did lost the war against the Communist party. Thus the Communist party was obviously stronger than the KMT. If the KMT was unable to win against the communists, how could it be stronger than the communists against the Japanese?
Quote:Why? But because they were totally unable to bring stability. Something that the Communists did.
Quote:But that's the problem. What you call "progressive" is the most reactionary thing on Earth: imperialism.
Quote:Your main argument is that imperialism and capitalism are better than socialism, and that the situation in North Korea is due to the inefficiency of socialist policies. So we are discussion why socialism is better than socialism, and why it's important to oppose imperialism.
Quote:When the Japanese surrendered, the communists were in a much better position to resume the civil war than the KMT.
Quote:They were unable to bring stability because they were invaded by Japan.
Quote:No, I'm saying that the socialism of North Korea and the USSR (and every other "socialist" state) was never proper socialism as it was never democratic. I'm also saying that when socialism is introduced prematurely as it was in nearly all countries, it inevitable has to resort to capitalist reforms in order to reach western standards of development. Proper socialism should be the socialism that emerges in a developed capitalist society and is truly democratic. This will be superior to capitalism.
Quote:Not when there are more reactionary forms out there (feudal theocracy). Also, you are forgetting that capitalism is a necessary historical stage.
Quote:If you don't think there is a progressive national bourgeoisie, what is the logic of supporting 'anti-imperialist' nationalists in the less developed world? How do you choose one nationalist, like baathists, over another, like islamists?
Quote:If socialism does everything better, why did it need a red army to maintain a series of buffer states to survive (let alone an international revolution)
Quote:Completely without a national revolution in these states?
Quote:Why did it need such a bloated military compared to everyone else?
Quote:If socialism was so much better than capitalism, than explain the presence of wage labor, commodity production, and extensive trade links that truly fostered industrialization.
Quote:All I'm getting is that nationally oriented state capitalism is better than liberal capitalism. Is that why you support baathists too?