Total Posts:38|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Communism & Success

ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2012 3:03:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Can anyone name me a truly communist regime that was successful by any stretch of the word?

China doesn't count because they aren't really communists because they operate a government regulated version of capitalism.

Name your country and explain your pick.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2012 3:13:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/27/2012 3:03:16 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Can anyone name me a truly communist regime that was successful by any stretch of the word?

China doesn't count because they aren't really communists because they operate a government regulated version of capitalism.

Name your country and explain your pick.

China is not state-capitalist, they are state-socialist moving towards state capitalism.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2012 3:13:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/27/2012 3:13:19 PM, DanT wrote:
At 4/27/2012 3:03:16 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Can anyone name me a truly communist regime that was successful by any stretch of the word?

China doesn't count because they aren't really communists because they operate a government regulated version of capitalism.

Name your country and explain your pick.

China is not state-capitalist, they are state-socialist moving towards state capitalism.

Thanks for the correction. The point is they aren't communist.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2012 3:38:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/27/2012 3:33:25 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
This is an unfair request. Capitalism hasn't been tried either. Doesn't mean it is bad.

Are you high?
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Deathbeforedishonour
Posts: 1,058
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2012 3:51:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/27/2012 3:38:14 PM, DanT wrote:
At 4/27/2012 3:33:25 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
This is an unfair request. Capitalism hasn't been tried either. Doesn't mean it is bad.

Are you high?

Nope, He's telling truth. :P
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." ~ John 1:1

Matthew 10:22- "And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved."
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2012 3:56:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/27/2012 3:51:57 PM, Deathbeforedishonour wrote:
At 4/27/2012 3:38:14 PM, DanT wrote:
At 4/27/2012 3:33:25 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
This is an unfair request. Capitalism hasn't been tried either. Doesn't mean it is bad.

Are you high?

Nope, He's telling truth. :P

Indeed he is.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2012 3:58:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/27/2012 3:56:21 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/27/2012 3:51:57 PM, Deathbeforedishonour wrote:
At 4/27/2012 3:38:14 PM, DanT wrote:
At 4/27/2012 3:33:25 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
This is an unfair request. Capitalism hasn't been tried either. Doesn't mean it is bad.

Are you high?

Nope, He's telling truth. :P

Indeed he is.

If we start thinking that communism (or 'communal socialism') is the furthest left we can go, then we have to define capitalism as the furthest right. Every government has a combination of both socialist and capitalist features. The only universal feature is statism.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2012 3:58:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Both capitalism and communism are likely never to be implemented for the same reason. People in power just can not trust the common man to act in ways that will better society.
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2012 4:17:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/27/2012 3:58:54 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Both capitalism and communism are likely never to be implemented for the same reason. People in power just can not trust the common man to act in ways that will better society.

I trust him more than the those who choose to go into government. I prefer incompetence to ill intent (which is why, if pushed to choose one, I would prefer Obama to Romney. Obama comes across as a guy who genuinely believes he is doing the right thing for America, even if he is hopelessly, catastrophically wrong)
Ameriman
Posts: 622
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2012 4:50:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
People have different definitions of capitalism and communism. So, whether or not either of them has actually existed is a matter of debate.

What we can say, with certainty, is that some countries are closer to what is thought of as "capitalistic" while other countries are closer to "communistic".

The more "capitalistic" countries in the world are Hong Kong, Singapore (although, admittedly, the heavy state involvement in industry complicates this substantially), Australia, and, to a lesser extent, the USA among others.

The more communistic countries in the world would be North Korea, Cuba, and, to a lesser extent, Venezuala among others.

Now, unambiguously, the capitalistic countries are far more successful. Of course, there are confounding factors. Human capital, physical capital, and other differences play a large role. But, even after taking that into account, it is very hard to say that the countries that are more "communistic" are anywhere near as successful as the more "capitalistic" countries.
We spend too much our time measuring compassion for those in needs by measuring inputs. How much money are we spending? How many programs are we creating? But we are not focusing on outcomes. Are these programs working? Are people getting out of poverty?
-Paul Ryan
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2012 5:15:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/27/2012 4:50:03 PM, Ameriman wrote:
People have different definitions of capitalism and communism. So, whether or not either of them has actually existed is a matter of debate.

What we can say, with certainty, is that some countries are closer to what is thought of as "capitalistic" while other countries are closer to "communistic".

The more "capitalistic" countries in the world are Hong Kong, Singapore (although, admittedly, the heavy state involvement in industry complicates this substantially), Australia, and, to a lesser extent, the USA among others.

The more communistic countries in the world would be North Korea, Cuba, and, to a lesser extent, Venezuala among others.

Now, unambiguously, the capitalistic countries are far more successful. Of course, there are confounding factors. Human capital, physical capital, and other differences play a large role. But, even after taking that into account, it is very hard to say that the countries that are more "communistic" are anywhere near as successful as the more "capitalistic" countries.

It's impossible to compare a communist and capitalist country when you're saying communist countries are North Korea and Cuba and capitalist countries are America. It's the equivalent of saying "I'll compare northern and southern UK Football teams to determine whether the region is important when determining if you get good football teams. I'll compare Newcastle, Liverpool and Manchester with Scarborough."

Here's a reasonable test: let's see if France improves if Hollande is elected in the next 4 years. If the socialist regime is better than Sarkozy's regime, then we can start gleaming more insight.

If we compare 1980s syndicalism with Thatcherite reign, although many contend Thatcher's ministerialship was bad, the syndicalist state was undoubtedly worse. If we compare the two, then we'll be getting somewhere.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Ameriman
Posts: 622
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2012 5:22:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/27/2012 5:15:40 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 4/27/2012 4:50:03 PM, Ameriman wrote:
People have different definitions of capitalism and communism. So, whether or not either of them has actually existed is a matter of debate.

What we can say, with certainty, is that some countries are closer to what is thought of as "capitalistic" while other countries are closer to "communistic".

The more "capitalistic" countries in the world are Hong Kong, Singapore (although, admittedly, the heavy state involvement in industry complicates this substantially), Australia, and, to a lesser extent, the USA among others.

The more communistic countries in the world would be North Korea, Cuba, and, to a lesser extent, Venezuala among others.

Now, unambiguously, the capitalistic countries are far more successful. Of course, there are confounding factors. Human capital, physical capital, and other differences play a large role. But, even after taking that into account, it is very hard to say that the countries that are more "communistic" are anywhere near as successful as the more "capitalistic" countries.

It's impossible to compare a communist and capitalist country when you're saying communist countries are North Korea and Cuba and capitalist countries are America. It's the equivalent of saying "I'll compare northern and southern UK Football teams to determine whether the region is important when determining if you get good football teams. I'll compare Newcastle, Liverpool and Manchester with Scarborough."

Here's a reasonable test: let's see if France improves if Hollande is elected in the next 4 years. If the socialist regime is better than Sarkozy's regime, then we can start gleaming more insight.

If we compare 1980s syndicalism with Thatcherite reign, although many contend Thatcher's ministerialship was bad, the syndicalist state was undoubtedly worse. If we compare the two, then we'll be getting somewhere.

First, this whole argument is about communism. I am no fan of the French economic model, but it is not communistic.

Furthermore, as bad as Hollande's ideas are, economies always recover. So, there may well be an economic recovery while Hollande is president, as there will be everywhere else. The question is about long term productivity.

We do have many good examples of this.

If we were to look at the first world, we could see France, Germany, Italy, Spain, as well as Sweden, Denmark, and Norway as examples of social democratic economic models. On the other hand, we could look at the USA, UK, Ireland, New Zealand, Australia as more market capitalist type models.

While these comparisons are not perfect, these countries are similiar enough to compare. I would say the market capitalist ones are more successful in many respects while the social democratic ones are more successful in others.

However, I attribute the success of social democracy in Scandinavia to culture not economic policy. I don't think that that type of social democracy could ever work in America.
We spend too much our time measuring compassion for those in needs by measuring inputs. How much money are we spending? How many programs are we creating? But we are not focusing on outcomes. Are these programs working? Are people getting out of poverty?
-Paul Ryan
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2012 5:25:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/27/2012 3:03:16 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Can anyone name me a truly communist regime that was successful by any stretch of the word?

China doesn't count because they aren't really communists because they operate a government regulated version of capitalism.

Name your country and explain your pick.

* jeopardy theme song*
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2012 5:28:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The closest thing to "true" communism are projects that occur on a very small level. For instance, Ujamas and Kibbutz were closer in practice to stateless communism (even if they were not avowedly communism) than any major entity I am familiar with.

Nearly all failed within seven or so years.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2012 5:28:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/27/2012 3:58:54 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Both capitalism and communism are likely never to be implemented for the same reason. People in power just can not trust anyone other than themselves to act in ways that will better society.

Fixed
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2012 5:31:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/27/2012 5:28:52 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/27/2012 3:58:54 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Both capitalism and communism are likely never to be implemented for the same reason. People in power just can not trust anyone other than themselves to act in ways that will better society.

Fixed

It's easy to confuse the two, since by some strange coincidence the people, named to be voting ignorantly are always supporting a candidate other than yourself.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2012 5:31:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/27/2012 5:22:40 PM, Ameriman wrote:
At 4/27/2012 5:15:40 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 4/27/2012 4:50:03 PM, Ameriman wrote:
People have different definitions of capitalism and communism. So, whether or not either of them has actually existed is a matter of debate.

What we can say, with certainty, is that some countries are closer to what is thought of as "capitalistic" while other countries are closer to "communistic".

The more "capitalistic" countries in the world are Hong Kong, Singapore (although, admittedly, the heavy state involvement in industry complicates this substantially), Australia, and, to a lesser extent, the USA among others.

The more communistic countries in the world would be North Korea, Cuba, and, to a lesser extent, Venezuala among others.

Now, unambiguously, the capitalistic countries are far more successful. Of course, there are confounding factors. Human capital, physical capital, and other differences play a large role. But, even after taking that into account, it is very hard to say that the countries that are more "communistic" are anywhere near as successful as the more "capitalistic" countries.

It's impossible to compare a communist and capitalist country when you're saying communist countries are North Korea and Cuba and capitalist countries are America. It's the equivalent of saying "I'll compare northern and southern UK Football teams to determine whether the region is important when determining if you get good football teams. I'll compare Newcastle, Liverpool and Manchester with Scarborough."

Here's a reasonable test: let's see if France improves if Hollande is elected in the next 4 years. If the socialist regime is better than Sarkozy's regime, then we can start gleaming more insight.

If we compare 1980s syndicalism with Thatcherite reign, although many contend Thatcher's ministerialship was bad, the syndicalist state was undoubtedly worse. If we compare the two, then we'll be getting somewhere.

First, this whole argument is about communism. I am no fan of the French economic model, but it is not communistic.

Furthermore, as bad as Hollande's ideas are, economies always recover. So, there may well be an economic recovery while Hollande is president, as there will be everywhere else. The question is about long term productivity.

We do have many good examples of this.

I'd question the problems with Hollande: he's a little more pessimistic, but promotes a strong economic model (even though it is not his focus).

If we were to look at the first world, we could see France, Germany, Italy, Spain, as well as Sweden, Denmark, and Norway as examples of social democratic economic models. On the other hand, we could look at the USA, UK, Ireland, New Zealand, Australia as more market capitalist type models.

I'd state that the UK still is transitioning into a capitalistic market from the New Right market, and the same for Australia (a lot of regulation, and a lot of CSR).

While these comparisons are not perfect, these countries are similiar enough to compare. I would say the market capitalist ones are more successful in many respects while the social democratic ones are more successful in others.

Germany to the UK, or Italy to the UK, or Ireland to Spain, probably. These comparisons seem better.

However, I attribute the success of social democracy in Scandinavia to culture not economic policy. I don't think that that type of social democracy could ever work in America.

Agreed. This is due to culture. Economic Policy has to work in conjunction to culture. When countries lose wars, or go through suffering, they usually gain more leftwing policies, I think.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2012 6:08:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/27/2012 5:31:22 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/27/2012 5:28:52 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/27/2012 3:58:54 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Both capitalism and communism are likely never to be implemented for the same reason. People in power just can not trust anyone other than themselves to act in ways that will better society.

Fixed

It's easy to confuse the two, since by some strange coincidence the people, named to be voting ignorantly are always supporting a candidate other than yourself.

I disagree.
Ameriman
Posts: 622
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2012 8:31:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago

I'd question the problems with Hollande: he's a little more pessimistic, but promotes a strong economic model (even though it is not his focus).

How is a 75% top tax rate a strong economic model?

That is more like a model for economic disaster


If we were to look at the first world, we could see France, Germany, Italy, Spain, as well as Sweden, Denmark, and Norway as examples of social democratic economic models. On the other hand, we could look at the USA, UK, Ireland, New Zealand, Australia as more market capitalist type models.

I'd state that the UK still is transitioning into a capitalistic market from the New Right market, and the same for Australia (a lot of regulation, and a lot of CSR).

Ya, but compared to the first set of countries, I would say they are more pro market.


While these comparisons are not perfect, these countries are similiar enough to compare. I would say the market capitalist ones are more successful in many respects while the social democratic ones are more successful in others.

Germany to the UK, or Italy to the UK, or Ireland to Spain, probably. These comparisons seem better.

Right. France to the UK works too. But, I would say those comparisons are favorable to the market oriented economies.


However, I attribute the success of social democracy in Scandinavia to culture not economic policy. I don't think that that type of social democracy could ever work in America.

Agreed. This is due to culture. Economic Policy has to work in conjunction to culture. When countries lose wars, or go through suffering, they usually gain more leftwing policies, I think.

Of course, I am coming from an anti social democratic position.

However, I am opposed to social democratic policies in America. I think there are some countries, like Sweden and Denmark, where they can work better because of teh culture. Also, there is more public support there.

THis is not to say I don't think a little more neoliberalism could help Scandinavia. In fact, over the past couple decades, Scandinavia has seen pro market reforms.
We spend too much our time measuring compassion for those in needs by measuring inputs. How much money are we spending? How many programs are we creating? But we are not focusing on outcomes. Are these programs working? Are people getting out of poverty?
-Paul Ryan
1dustpelt
Posts: 1,970
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2012 11:41:37 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Waiting for Royal to come...
Wall of LOL
"Infanticide is justified as long as the infants are below two" ~ RoyalPaladin
"Promoting female superiority is the only way to establish equality." ~ RoyalPaladin
"Jury trials should be banned. They're nothing more than opportunities for racists to destroy lives." ~ RoyalPaladin after the Zimmerman Trial.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2012 12:26:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/28/2012 11:41:37 AM, 1dustpelt wrote:
Waiting for Royal to come...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2012 12:51:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/27/2012 3:33:25 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
This is an unfair request. Capitalism hasn't been tried either. Doesn't mean it is bad.

+1
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2012 1:12:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/28/2012 12:26:34 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/28/2012 11:41:37 AM, 1dustpelt wrote:
Waiting for Royal to come...

With that technique, you'll be waiting a long time. I'd give you tips, but that might be illegal.
Jon1
Posts: 314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2012 3:11:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/27/2012 3:33:25 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
This is an unfair request. Capitalism hasn't been tried either. Doesn't mean it is bad.

Some societies for a small period of time have come quite close, though.
UnStupendousMan
Posts: 3,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2012 3:30:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/28/2012 3:11:27 PM, Jon1 wrote:
At 4/27/2012 3:33:25 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
This is an unfair request. Capitalism hasn't been tried either. Doesn't mean it is bad.

Some societies for a small period of time have come quite close, though.

Being in four straight Super Bowls =/= Winning four straight Super Bowls.

Coming close to pure capitalism for a small period of time =/= pure capitalism.
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2012 3:36:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/28/2012 3:30:19 PM, UnStupendousMan wrote:
At 4/28/2012 3:11:27 PM, Jon1 wrote:
At 4/27/2012 3:33:25 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
This is an unfair request. Capitalism hasn't been tried either. Doesn't mean it is bad.

Some societies for a small period of time have come quite close, though.

Being in four straight Super Bowls =/= Winning four straight Super Bowls.

Coming close to pure capitalism for a small period of time =/= pure capitalism.

I would have used sex analogies, but that is because there is something wrong with me.
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2012 4:12:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Joseph Stalin, a communist, killed 20 million people.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2012 4:41:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Communism will ultimately fail every time because they attempt to divide people into two groups. The capitalists and the laborers.

People come from a wide range of backgrounds: cultural, religious, race, linguistic, family, intelligence, values, morals, tastes, talents etc.

You try to take all of this and funnel it into two groups that exist only to labor for the State's survival so that all are equal.

People aren't equal and therefore communism will always fail.