Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

Would you like to emmigrate to the DPRK?

POST REPLY

Would you like to emigrate to the DPRK?

Yes
13
16%
No
30
38%
Maybe
5
6%
I would prefer to emigrate to China, Cuba or another Socialist country
18
23%
No, I like it where I am.
13
16%
 
Total votes : 79
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2293
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 01 Jun 2013, 14:14
Quote:
You know full well that saying "I oppose it" on this board would achieve absolutely nothing in overthrowing global imperialism.

Then why do you discuss on this board, if whatever you say there is useless? If it's just a hobby, you better play Skyrim.

Quote:
Cows eat grass, which is not a cereal crop.

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:
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.

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. 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.


Image


Also there wasn't much differences between the Soviet population and the US population.

Quote:
Lol, the dialectics of a crop yield now?

Yes, there is dialectics in everything, even in your brain.


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.

Yes of course, and I should asko speak of fishery resources?
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.
Image

"Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred
"Loz, you are like me" Yami
"I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
Soviet cogitations: 1128
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Aug 2008, 18:12
Party Member
Post 01 Jun 2013, 15:41
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.


Yes, they ate less meat because their agriculture was worse.

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.


And yet you say "bad weather" affected the whole of the Soviet Union - the largest country on earth at the time. Plus the US had droughts affecting its agriculture throughout the 20th century. The Dust Bowl wasn't the only example.

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.


What's your point?

Quote:
Also there wasn't much differences between the Soviet population and the US population.


I'm talking about growth rates.

Quote:
Yes, there is dialectics in everything, even in your brain.


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 of course, and I should asko speak of fishery resources?


Yes.

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.


You have failed to provide sufficient data to support your claims.
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.

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drought_in ... ted_States
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2293
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 01 Jun 2013, 16:24
Quote:
What's your point?

My point is that the US also suffered from bad yields, but to a lesser extent.

Quote:
And yet you say "bad weather" affected the whole of the Soviet Union - the largest country on earth at the time.

Most of the soil is impracticable due to permafrost, you should know that.

About the population, as I said already, you are a big boy, you can go on the internet and search, I'm not a data center. If you have something to oppose to my conclusions, do it. I said that the population were the same, growth included.

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.

I wasn't talking about the definition. We all know what a yield and a crop are. But you forgot that you can increase the surface in order to increase the production, which has nothing to do with the definition.

Quote:
Yes.

Why?

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.

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:
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.

Bad weather was only one of the causes, I also cited the increase in weapon production as a cause. Moreover, your conclusion that "capitalist economies have a much better long-term track" is pure sophism:

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.
2 - Most socialist countries only lasted a few decades, so you can't tell what would have happened if they had won the war. 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.
3 - In this discussion I explain why Soviet difficulties in the 1970's were due to cyclical and non-structural causes. Any capitalist economy would have failed had the roles been reversed. This conclusion can also be applied to North Korea.
Image

"Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred
"Loz, you are like me" Yami
"I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
Soviet cogitations: 1128
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Aug 2008, 18:12
Party Member
Post 01 Jun 2013, 19:39
Quote:
Most of the soil is impracticable due to permafrost, you should know that.


But agricultural land is spread over a wider area so bad weather is less likely to affect a large area of cultivation.

Quote:
I said that the population were the same, growth included.


Why did you say this? What evidence caused you to say this?

Quote:
Why?


Because fishing is part of agriculture.

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.


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:
Bad weather was only one of the causes, I also cited the increase in weapon production as a cause.


"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:
Moreover, your conclusion that "capitalist economies have a much better long-term track" is pure sophism:


A painfully accurate observation though...

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.


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?

Also, if the USSR was so great economically, why did it collapse?

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.


What 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.


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.

China's growth only really took off after Deng introduced capitalist reforms. Before that it was closer to Soviet socialism so your logic fails you once again. If China's socialist-capitalist hybrid is growing the economy, it's clearly because of the capitalist part, not the socialist part. (Although again, China has never been truly socialist).

Quote:
3 - In this discussion I explain why Soviet difficulties in the 1970's were due to cyclical and non-structural causes.


No you didn't. You just showed there were dips in yields and simply assumed this was just due to the weather.

Quote:
Any capitalist economy would have failed had the roles been reversed.


Define "failed." Also, capitalist countries have suffered bad weather in the past and they didn't collapse like the USSR did. Did the US collapse due to the dust bowl?

Quote:
This conclusion can also be applied to North Korea.


North Korea only survives because China and some western NGOs give it aid. It lives off capitalist charity.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2293
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 01 Jun 2013, 22:32
Quote:
But agricultural land is spread over a wider area so bad weather is less likely to affect a large area of cultivation.

I already answered this question. No much territory is fitting for agriculture due to permafrost. In 1933, most of the Soviet agricultural regions were concerned by the bad crop. As we can see on this map, only 10% of the Soviet territory was arable. That's 2 269 000 km2, half of the US arable land.

Image






Quote:
Because fishing is part of agriculture.


what?

EDIT: it was funny picture, but you should keep those in Mir. - Che Burashka

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.

OMG, and if I wrote a whole book you would still say "you haven't proven that your figures are reliable"? My datas are there. You have the yield for the 4th producing state in the USA, which represents certainly the whole US production. You have the Soviet yield, I also said that they had a bad weather this year. You have the imports and exports. Now my datas are there, if you have anything against my datas or my conclusion, prove it. If you think that the weather was good in 1971-1972, prove it. If you believe that the evolution of the yield in North Dakota doesn't represent well the evolution of the whole American yield, prove it.

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.

http://www.culture-of-peace.info/soviet ... page9.html

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?

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:
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.

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. History has proven the supremacy of socialism. 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:
What war?

The cold war of course.


Quote:
No you didn't. You just showed there were dips in yields and simply assumed this was just due to the weather.

I don't "assume", this is a fact. If you have a better explanation, give it, otherwise you better not say anything.

Quote:
Define "failed." Also, capitalist countries have suffered bad weather in the past and they didn't collapse like the USSR did.

Crumbled, disappeared, drowned in blood and revolution, converted to socialism.

Quote:
Did the US collapse due to the dust bowl?

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:
North Korea only survives because China and some western NGOs give it aid. It lives off capitalist charity.

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. They survived mostly thanks to their fanatism, this is their strenght. 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?
Image

"Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred
"Loz, you are like me" Yami
"I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
Soviet cogitations: 1128
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Aug 2008, 18:12
Party Member
Post 02 Jun 2013, 16:22
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.


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:
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.


Define "quite alike".

Quote:
History has proven the supremacy of socialism.


Are you blind? Socialism is currently lying in the gutter while capitalism reigns supreme!

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.


No, it's a very accurate observation.

"Since the introduction of economic reforms, China’s economy has grown substantially faster than
during the pre-reform period. According to the Chinese government, from 1953 to
1978, real annual GDP growth was estimated at 6.7%,5 although many analysts claim that
Chinese economic data during this period are highly questionable because government officials
often exaggerated production levels for a variety of political reasons.6 Economist Agnus
Maddison estimated China’s average annual real GDP during this period at 4.4%...During the reform period
(1979-2011), China’s average annual real GDP grew by 9.9%. This essentially has meant that, on
average, China has been able to double the size of its economy in real terms every eight years."
p.7

"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. These two factors appear to have gone together hand in hand.
Economic reforms led to higher efficiency in the economy, which boosted output and increased
resources for additional investment in the economy."
p.9

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33534.pdf

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.


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:
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.


They had food shortages, a large number of people died from starvation, so the country asked for aid.

Quote:
They survived mostly thanks to their fanatism, this is their strenght.


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:
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?


So not committing civilian genocide is charity? Surely I could just say that North Korea survives because of US charity not to nuke them?
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2293
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 02 Jun 2013, 20:49
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

No country is impossible to invade. China had been occupied by Japan for years.

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.

An "emerging power" isn't a superpower. Moreover China and India have much more population than the USSR had.

Quote:
Define "quite alike".

Quite alike = few differences.

Quote:
Are you blind? Socialism is currently lying in the gutter while capitalism reigns supreme!

Ahah, that was also true for Cromwell after his defeat, yet Cromwell had already proven the superiority of capitalism over feudalism. Socialism is absolutely superior in all respects, ceteris paribus. The history of the XXth century was a struggle between advanced capitalist countries VS backward countries, except for a very few countries such as East Germany, but even there the amount of destruction didn't make things equal. The fact that those countries were able to oppose the USA for so long is sufficient to prove the superiority of socialism. That was only the first two waves, the second will come soon.

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

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, under socialism you also have foreign investment. China wouldn't be there today without the socialist structure. Also I don't think that an economic analysis for the American congress can be trusted.

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.

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:
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.

There was famine even in the army, and ask the French if 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?

Yes, that wouldn't be more ridiculous than saying they survived thanks to US charity.

US charity...
Image

"Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred
"Loz, you are like me" Yami
"I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
Soviet cogitations: 1128
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Aug 2008, 18:12
Party Member
Post 02 Jun 2013, 22:47
Quote:
No country is impossible to invade. China had been occupied by Japan for years.


Impossible to successfully invade. The Germans gave it the best try but they failed, even though 25,000,000 Soviets died.

Quote:
An "emerging power" isn't a superpower. Moreover China and India have much more population than the USSR had.


Not yet, but they lack the resources that the USSR has in terms of things like oil.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... l_reserves

Also, the USSR was able to match the US militarily, but other sectors suffered as a result of such investment in the military.

Quote:
Quite alike = few differences.


Too vague. China and India had some similarities in 1949, but they are both two separate countries with many differences such as culture, geography, education levels, etc etc. There was no guarantee they would be identical today.

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_o ... .931991.29

Quote:
Ahah, that was also true for Cromwell after his defeat, yet Cromwell had already proven the superiority of capitalism over feudalism.


Not so much economically. I don't know much about the period but I'm pretty sure he didn't have time to introduce radical economic reforms. A brief skim through this seems to show his economic policy largely focused on trying to steal colonies off rival European powers.

Quote:
Socialism is absolutely superior in all respects, ceteris paribus.


Yes (or rather, it should be), but the socialism of the USSR, Mao's China and the rest were not true socialism as the working classes never had any power. Also, the fact that they collapsed/turned to capitalism shows that next time, socialism will have to be done differently if it wants to avoid repeating this.

Quote:
The fact that those countries were able to oppose the USA for so long is sufficient to prove the superiority of socialism.


No, the superiority of socialism will only occur when the the prospect of returning to capitalism makes as much sense the idea of returning to feudalism in a capitalist country today.

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,


Foreign investment has everything to do with capitalism. The foreign investors will only invest if they think they can make a profit out of it. This therefore requires a capitalist system to be in place which will allow them to conduct business in this way.

Quote:
under socialism you also have foreign investment.


But foreign investment in China operates under a capitalist system. Otherwise the capitalist foreigners wouldn't invest.

Quote:
China wouldn't be there today without the socialist structure.


They wouldn't be at the stage of opening themselves up to capitalism were it not for the socialist structure?

Quote:
Also I don't think that an economic analysis for the American congress can be trusted.


The Americans are huge investors in China. Why would they lie about this?

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.


I don't particularly care either (discussing the history of Soviet agriculture was not why I joined this thread). My point is that people in the USSR suffered from a shortage of consumer goods (I don't have time to find a source but it's well known) which contributed to its collapse.

Quote:
Yes, that wouldn't be more ridiculous than saying they survived thanks to US charity.


Charity is generally considered to be the act of giving something - in this case, food and medicine. Not "giving" someone a nuclear warhead on their capital city doesn't count as charity. I'm currently not nuking anyone. Am I giving them charity?
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2293
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 04 Jun 2013, 00:02
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


Foreign investment has everything to do with capitalism. The foreign investors will only invest if they think they can make a profit out of it. This therefore requires a capitalist system to be in place which will allow them to conduct business in this way.

Quote:
But foreign investment in China operates under a capitalist system. Otherwise the capitalist foreigners wouldn't invest.

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:
They wouldn't be at the stage of opening themselves up to capitalism were it not for the socialist structure?

China already opened itself to capitalism in the 1920's, they even opened themselves to Japanese capitalism. That failed, China was saved by socialism. 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:
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.

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. Then Nehru allied the USA against China, the Communist party was in the opposition. 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:
The Americans are huge investors in China. Why would they lie about this?

Bourgeois economy is a religion. The bourgeoisie supports austerity, yet everyone knows that austerity leads us to chaos. You can't trust them no matter what.

Quote:
Charity is generally considered to be the act of giving something

Charity is more like a religious virtue. Not killing an enemy on the battlefied is part of this virtue. Charity comes from caritas.
Image

"Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred
"Loz, you are like me" Yami
"I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
Soviet cogitations: 1128
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Aug 2008, 18:12
Party Member
Post 04 Jun 2013, 20:38
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.


At last you understand.

Quote:
China already opened itself to capitalism in the 1920's, they even opened themselves to Japanese capitalism.


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:
That failed, China was saved by socialism.


Saved from what? China was saved from Japan by their own efforts and their US allies. Yes China grew under Mao but that's hardly suprising. The country was at peace and under the full control of a strong state. 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:
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.


This doesn't even make sense. Without capitalism, china woudn't be opening itself to capitalism, it would be a capitalist country?

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.


I never said it was exactly the same.

Quote:
Then Nehru allied the USA against China, the Communist party was in the opposition.


What?

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.


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.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2293
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 05 Jun 2013, 00:11
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.

If that was true the KMT wouldn't have lost the war.

Quote:
Saved from what? China was saved from Japan by their own efforts and their US allies.

Once again you forget the Soviet allies, you're really on the imperialist side.


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.

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:
This doesn't even make sense. Without capitalism, china woudn't be opening itself to capitalism, it would be a capitalist country?

OMG, I meant socialism of course.


Quote:
What?

What what? Are you discovering the truth?

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.

Once again you prove that you don't know what you're talking about. 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. 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?
Image

"Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred
"Loz, you are like me" Yami
"I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
Soviet cogitations: 1128
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Aug 2008, 18:12
Party Member
Post 05 Jun 2013, 20:44
Quote:
If that was true the KMT wouldn't have lost the war.


How so?

Quote:
Once again you forget the Soviet allies, you're really on the imperialist side.


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:
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.


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:
What what? Are you discovering the truth?


"Then Nehru allied the USA against China, the Communist party was in the opposition" doesn't make sense.

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.


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 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?


It's funny how you seem to resort to petty sniping. I simply support the most progressive option available and hope that the people of all these countries can seize this option. You, on the other hand, support anything which is anti-US, including medieval Islamists affiliated with al-Qaeda. I'm also prepared to be flexible with this approach. For example, any rebellion in Syria which provides a democratic-bourgeois government I support. However, since it has become increasingly clear that the rebels are bunch of reactionary Islamists, I know that Assad is the best option. Of course, if the bourgeois democrats were to rise up and the Islamists recede, I'd be back supporting the democrats. You just seem to think along the lines of Assad or nothing.

Anyway, I'm bored with thread. We stopped talking about North Korea ages ago.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2293
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 06 Jun 2013, 00:13
Quote:
How so?

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:
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.

Yes, that's what I think. The Japanese didn't surrender immediately, and the Americans had no more bombs. Invading Japan could have cost much and lasted long. The Soviet attack was obviously the main reason for which the Japanese decided to surrender. With the Americans they could save the high ranking officials and the ruling class, with the Communists, they would have lost their heads.

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.

Why? But because they were totally unable to bring stability. Something that the Communists did.

Quote:
"Then Nehru allied the USA against China, the Communist party was in the opposition" doesn't make sense.

What don't you understand? That Nehru allied with the USA against China, or that the Communist party was in the opposition?

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?

Because they tried to do the contrary, and that's why they lost in 2011.

Quote:
It's funny how you seem to resort to petty sniping. I simply support the most progressive option available

But that's the problem. What you call "progressive" is the most reactionary thing on Earth: imperialism.

Quote:
Anyway, I'm bored with thread. We stopped talking about North Korea ages ago.

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.
Image

"Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred
"Loz, you are like me" Yami
"I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
Soviet cogitations: 1128
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Aug 2008, 18:12
Party Member
Post 06 Jun 2013, 18:41
Ok this is my last post in this thread. I'm done with it.

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?


The KMT lost to the communists because it had just had to fight a full on Japanese invasion. Prior to the Second Sino-Japanese War, the KMT was much stronger than the communists, hence they had to retreat to Yanan along the Long March and rebuild their bases there. While the communists did fight against the Japanese, the KMT did by far the lion's share of the work while the communists kept building their organisation and biding their time. When the Japanese surrendered, the communists were in a much better position to resume the civil war than the KMT.

Quote:
Why? But because they were totally unable to bring stability. Something that the Communists did.


They were unable to bring stability because they were invaded by Japan. The KMT started out in Gunagdong province in the south and had to conquer the rest of China proper from the independent warlords who had emerged after the Qing dynasty fell. They did this in 1927 and were able to begin consolidating their rule (the Nanjing decade). However, the Japanese obviously attacked in 1937 and the rest is history.

Quote:
But that's the problem. What you call "progressive" is the most reactionary thing on Earth: imperialism.


Not when there are more reactionary forms out there (feudal theocracy). Also, you are forgetting that capitalism is a necessary historical stage.

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.


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.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2293
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 07 Jun 2013, 05:32
Quote:
When the Japanese surrendered, the communists were in a much better position to resume the civil war than the KMT.

History rewritten by Gred. Communists applied guerilla tactics to the war against Japan, that was a good training against the KMT whose defeat was for a great part due to its economic failure as the government was unable to control the bourgeoisie.

Quote:
They were unable to bring stability because they were invaded by Japan.

They were invaded in 1937 only.

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.

Your definition of "democratic" is totally bourgeois. What you call "democratic" is the shape of democracy (liberty), but not the content (equality). Any kind of socialism, no matter how much "dictatorial" it is (that's the dictatorship of the proletariat), is much more democratic than bourgeois democracy, because bourgeois democracy represents the power of a little part of the population, the bourgeoisie, over the biggest part of the population.

Secondly, the USSR reached western standards of development in the 1950's without having to "resort to capitalist reforms". So your assertion is arbitrary, there is nothing "inevitable". Since socialism is superior to capitalism, there is no need to "resort to capitalist reforms" once socialism is anchored, it would be totally reactionary and stupid. What capitalism does well, socialism does it much better. If a socialist state (not a socialist system) has to make a compromise with capitalism, it's because of the political resistance of capitalism itself and this isn't due to any structural weakness of socialism.

Thirdly, you have an anti-marxist stance since you believe that "proper socialism" (idealism) should "emerge in a developed capitalist society" and not be built upon the ruins of a capitalist society, which is totally different.

Quote:
Not when there are more reactionary forms out there (feudal theocracy). Also, you are forgetting that capitalism is a necessary historical stage.

We are living in this historical stage. Once again you confuse the shape/form (theocracy) and the content (capitalism). A capitalist theocracy is totally possible, as much as democratic dictatorship is possible. The reason for which Lenin supported the Emir of Afghanistan against the British (whose imperialism you certainly support), is that British imperialism was much more reactionary than the old feudalism of the Emir of Afghanistan. But now we are more than 100 years after that, and there is far less remnants of feudalism.

The stage in which capitalism is progressive against feudalism is the non-imperialist stage of capitalism. Usually, this is the stage of the national movement, something that happened with the decolonization and opposed non-imperialist capitalism, led by progressive national bourgeoisies, to imperialist capitalism. This epoch is over.
Image

"Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred
"Loz, you are like me" Yami
"I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 5137
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Nov 2007, 06:31
Embalmed
Post 07 Jun 2013, 20:48
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?

If there was no need to institute capitalist reforms, than what's with the 1965 economic reforms, and Stalin's little tidbit about the law of value and commodity production/wage labor in socialism in Economic Problems of the USSR? Why would anyone ever come up with a theory of 'socialist accumulation', which Stalin would be inspired by? If socialism was 'up to western standards', why did it need to take from germany and why did it have a large peasant/rural farmer demographic in the 50s still? Why did it need such a bloated military compared to everyone else? 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), completely without a national revolution in these states?

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.

All I'm getting is that nationally oriented state capitalism is better than liberal capitalism. Is that why you support baathists too?
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14444
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 07 Jun 2013, 21:47
Islamists are not nationalists. In fact of all the reactionary movements the world over, Islamism is the only actually internationalist one.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2293
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 07 Jun 2013, 22:28
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?

You can be reactionary and do something progressive. I took the example of the Emir of Afghanistan: he was obviously a very reactionary man, but his struggle against imperialism was progressive. So even though the period of decolonization is over, it doesn't mean that the national bourgeoisie became 100% reactionary or that the national building has ended. No dogmas can help us, we must analyze each concrete situation.

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)

Obviously because capitalism had its own "buffer states" called NATO.

Quote:
Completely without a national revolution in these states?

If the USSR had reached Paris at the end of WWII, France woudln't have had a revolution either. But due to the Resistance, a Communist governement would have been totally legitimate.

Quote:
Why did it need such a bloated military compared to everyone else?

You need a military when you have to defend yourself. At the end of WWII many western citizen lived in poverty, the economy was to be rebuilt. So the USSR was indeed "up to western standards", but the USA were still ahead.

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.

I don't understand the problem with commodities or trade or wage labor.

Quote:
All I'm getting is that nationally oriented state capitalism is better than liberal capitalism. Is that why you support baathists too?

I support them because I fear the jihadists and because they oppose imperialism. The Baath has a socialist tendency which has eroded but still exists. Consumption goods for example are still subzidized by the state, and that's why Western countries are willing to overthrow the Baath. So indeed, most of the time state capitalism is better than liberal capitalism, not because "the state" is better, but because this special configuration is usually due to a compromise between the proletariat and a part of the bourgeoisie. This happened in France and in the UK. So indeed, I support the Baath against the jihadists and against imperialism.
Image

"Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred
"Loz, you are like me" Yami
"I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 50
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 27 Feb 2014, 05:02
Ideology: Trotskyism
Pioneer
Post 17 May 2014, 16:05
Why would anyone ever want to move there? Not a good idea.

No one-liners please. Could you elaborate on this? Explanations and reasons foster greater discussion! -RD
Last edited by Red Daughter on 18 May 2014, 08:22, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: One-liner
While the state exists, there can be no freedom. When there is freedom there will be no state. - V. I. Lenin
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 589
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Dec 2013, 14:24
Ideology: Democratic Socialism
Unperson
Post 19 May 2014, 10:41
If you can survive on 2 meals a day and don’t mind being constantly hungry then fine.
If you have read all the books you want to read and seen all the films you want to see then great.
As the only books you can read and films you can watch in the DPKR are unreadable and unwatchable.
If you don’t mind living in an unsafe and freezing cold tower block, where the electricity goes off after 10 pm then be my guest.
But once you go in, you don’t get out. Don’t think that by sucking up to the regime you will be safe, you might back the wrong horse there and if the commissar you support falls out of favour, then you will too. Then it’s off to the gulag. As for health care...forget it! It is non-existent.
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.