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

Groceries 1; Communism 0: Yeltsin in Houston

Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2014 4:49:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
When Boris Yeltsin visited the US in 1989, seeing an ordinary Houston supermarket caused him to rethink his "Bolshevik consciousness" and leave the Communist party:

"About a year after the Russian leader left office, a Yeltsin biographer later wrote that on the plane ride to Yeltsin"s next destination, Miami, he was despondent. He couldn"t stop thinking about the plentiful food at the grocery store and what his countrymen had to subsist on in Russia."
http://blog.chron.com...
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2014 4:56:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/9/2014 4:49:18 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
When Boris Yeltsin visited the US in 1989, seeing an ordinary Houston supermarket caused him to rethink his "Bolshevik consciousness" and leave the Communist party:

"About a year after the Russian leader left office, a Yeltsin biographer later wrote that on the plane ride to Yeltsin"s next destination, Miami, he was despondent. He couldn"t stop thinking about the plentiful food at the grocery store and what his countrymen had to subsist on in Russia."
http://blog.chron.com...

Duh, that's why capitalism is a million times better.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2014 5:26:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/9/2014 4:49:18 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
When Boris Yeltsin visited the US in 1989, seeing an ordinary Houston supermarket caused him to rethink his "Bolshevik consciousness" and leave the Communist party:

"About a year after the Russian leader left office, a Yeltsin biographer later wrote that on the plane ride to Yeltsin"s next destination, Miami, he was despondent. He couldn"t stop thinking about the plentiful food at the grocery store and what his countrymen had to subsist on in Russia."
http://blog.chron.com...

If he had taken a somewhat more extensive tour, including unemployment lines; and closed factories; and interviews with individuals living paycheck to paycheck, struggling to pay their rent, facing financial ruin because they had no health insurance when they contracted a catastrophic illness; and homeless shelters, and blighted inner cities; and chicken processing plants where employees are worked so excessively and heartlessly that they develop crippling carpal tunnel before they're twenty-five, etc., well, then his impression of the capitalist "good life" might perhaps have been a tad less positive.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2014 2:58:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/9/2014 4:49:18 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
When Boris Yeltsin visited the US in 1989, seeing an ordinary Houston supermarket caused him to rethink his "Bolshevik consciousness" and leave the Communist party:

"About a year after the Russian leader left office, a Yeltsin biographer later wrote that on the plane ride to Yeltsin"s next destination, Miami, he was despondent. He couldn"t stop thinking about the plentiful food at the grocery store and what his countrymen had to subsist on in Russia."
http://blog.chron.com...

The funny thing is that you think the U.S.S.R. was actually at some point communist.
You can call me Mark if you like.
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2014 3:00:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/9/2014 5:26:52 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 11/9/2014 4:49:18 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
When Boris Yeltsin visited the US in 1989, seeing an ordinary Houston supermarket caused him to rethink his "Bolshevik consciousness" and leave the Communist party:

"About a year after the Russian leader left office, a Yeltsin biographer later wrote that on the plane ride to Yeltsin"s next destination, Miami, he was despondent. He couldn"t stop thinking about the plentiful food at the grocery store and what his countrymen had to subsist on in Russia."
http://blog.chron.com...

If he had taken a somewhat more extensive tour, including unemployment lines; and closed factories; and interviews with individuals living paycheck to paycheck, struggling to pay their rent, facing financial ruin because they had no health insurance when they contracted a catastrophic illness; and homeless shelters, and blighted inner cities; and chicken processing plants where employees are worked so excessively and heartlessly that they develop crippling carpal tunnel before they're twenty-five, etc., well, then his impression of the capitalist "good life" might perhaps have been a tad less positive.

If he had seen the U.S.-owned supercheap labor in the Third World, he probably would have vomited.
You can call me Mark if you like.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2014 2:27:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/1/2014 2:58:59 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 11/9/2014 4:49:18 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
When Boris Yeltsin visited the US in 1989, seeing an ordinary Houston supermarket caused him to rethink his "Bolshevik consciousness" and leave the Communist party:

"About a year after the Russian leader left office, a Yeltsin biographer later wrote that on the plane ride to Yeltsin"s next destination, Miami, he was despondent. He couldn"t stop thinking about the plentiful food at the grocery store and what his countrymen had to subsist on in Russia."
http://blog.chron.com...

The funny thing is that you think the U.S.S.R. was actually at some point communist.

Whether you think it was state socialist or state communist is irrelevant. What's relevant is that it potently centralized power in the hands of the state, leading to some of the worst human rights tragedies of all time. http://en.wikipedia.org...
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2014 2:34:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/2/2014 2:27:48 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 12/1/2014 2:58:59 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 11/9/2014 4:49:18 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
When Boris Yeltsin visited the US in 1989, seeing an ordinary Houston supermarket caused him to rethink his "Bolshevik consciousness" and leave the Communist party:

"About a year after the Russian leader left office, a Yeltsin biographer later wrote that on the plane ride to Yeltsin"s next destination, Miami, he was despondent. He couldn"t stop thinking about the plentiful food at the grocery store and what his countrymen had to subsist on in Russia."
http://blog.chron.com...

The funny thing is that you think the U.S.S.R. was actually at some point communist.

Whether you think it was state socialist or state communist is irrelevant. What's relevant is that it potently centralized power in the hands of the state, leading to some of the worst human rights tragedies of all time. http://en.wikipedia.org...

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc, eh?
You can call me Mark if you like.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2014 6:11:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/2/2014 2:34:09 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 12/2/2014 2:27:48 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 12/1/2014 2:58:59 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 11/9/2014 4:49:18 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
When Boris Yeltsin visited the US in 1989, seeing an ordinary Houston supermarket caused him to rethink his "Bolshevik consciousness" and leave the Communist party:

"About a year after the Russian leader left office, a Yeltsin biographer later wrote that on the plane ride to Yeltsin"s next destination, Miami, he was despondent. He couldn"t stop thinking about the plentiful food at the grocery store and what his countrymen had to subsist on in Russia."
http://blog.chron.com...

The funny thing is that you think the U.S.S.R. was actually at some point communist.

Whether you think it was state socialist or state communist is irrelevant. What's relevant is that it potently centralized power in the hands of the state, leading to some of the worst human rights tragedies of all time. http://en.wikipedia.org...

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc, eh?

If you're not willing to have an intelligent discussion on it, instead of throwing out names of fallacies than we're not going to reach a valuable conclusion. The causation is the centralization of power. Since there is no mechanism to allocate resources, there are shortages; since there are shortages, people unnecessarily starve.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2014 10:58:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/2/2014 6:11:35 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 12/2/2014 2:34:09 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 12/2/2014 2:27:48 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 12/1/2014 2:58:59 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 11/9/2014 4:49:18 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
When Boris Yeltsin visited the US in 1989, seeing an ordinary Houston supermarket caused him to rethink his "Bolshevik consciousness" and leave the Communist party:

"About a year after the Russian leader left office, a Yeltsin biographer later wrote that on the plane ride to Yeltsin"s next destination, Miami, he was despondent. He couldn"t stop thinking about the plentiful food at the grocery store and what his countrymen had to subsist on in Russia."
http://blog.chron.com...

The funny thing is that you think the U.S.S.R. was actually at some point communist.

Whether you think it was state socialist or state communist is irrelevant. What's relevant is that it potently centralized power in the hands of the state, leading to some of the worst human rights tragedies of all time. http://en.wikipedia.org...

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc, eh?

If you're not willing to have an intelligent discussion on it, instead of throwing out names of fallacies than we're not going to reach a valuable conclusion. The causation is the centralization of power.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't private businesses pretty perfect examples of centralised power? Don't give us this pro-democracy bullsh*t when everyone can see that 'libertarians' such as yourself strive for unrestrained private power.

Since there is no mechanism to allocate resources, there are shortages; since there are shortages, people unnecessarily starve.


It's my understanding that the mechanism was what Party bureaucrats deemed an 'appropriate distribution', which is literally the opposite of communism. So let's stop the attempts at point-scoring. I could just as easily fly Mr. Yeltsin to a slum in the Third World and let him enjoy the wonders of free-market capitalism there, instead of admiring the bounties that the richest and most powerful nation to have ever existed provides to its citizens via a heavily state-supported economy.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2014 8:08:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/2/2014 10:58:48 PM, Wocambs wrote:
centralization of power.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't private businesses pretty perfect examples of centralised power? Don't give us this pro-democracy bullsh*t when everyone can see that 'libertarians' such as yourself strive for unrestrained private power.

A business with centralized power is either one of two things.

Crony Capitalist business relying on heavy subsidies from crony politicians.

or..

About to go bankrupt from ignoring the consumer.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2014 9:03:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/3/2014 8:08:40 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 12/2/2014 10:58:48 PM, Wocambs wrote:
centralization of power.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't private businesses pretty perfect examples of centralised power? Don't give us this pro-democracy bullsh*t when everyone can see that 'libertarians' such as yourself strive for unrestrained private power.

A business with centralized power is either one of two things.

Crony Capitalist business relying on heavy subsidies from crony politicians.

or..

About to go bankrupt from ignoring the consumer.

Not really. No one has any right to challenge the decisions made by the owner of property. The power of the owner is absolute.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2014 9:43:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/3/2014 9:03:39 AM, Wocambs wrote:
At 12/3/2014 8:08:40 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 12/2/2014 10:58:48 PM, Wocambs wrote:
centralization of power.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't private businesses pretty perfect examples of centralised power? Don't give us this pro-democracy bullsh*t when everyone can see that 'libertarians' such as yourself strive for unrestrained private power.

A business with centralized power is either one of two things.

Crony Capitalist business relying on heavy subsidies from crony politicians.

or..

About to go bankrupt from ignoring the consumer.

Not really. No one has any right to challenge the decisions made by the owner of property. The power of the owner is absolute.

The consumer does. Like I said, that business falls under category 2.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2014 11:16:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/3/2014 9:43:47 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 12/3/2014 9:03:39 AM, Wocambs wrote:
At 12/3/2014 8:08:40 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 12/2/2014 10:58:48 PM, Wocambs wrote:
centralization of power.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't private businesses pretty perfect examples of centralised power? Don't give us this pro-democracy bullsh*t when everyone can see that 'libertarians' such as yourself strive for unrestrained private power.

A business with centralized power is either one of two things.

Crony Capitalist business relying on heavy subsidies from crony politicians.

or..

About to go bankrupt from ignoring the consumer.

Not really. No one has any right to challenge the decisions made by the owner of property. The power of the owner is absolute.

The consumer does. Like I said, that business falls under category 2.

The argument you're making could be just as easily applied to the Soviet Union. 'Stalin's power isn't centralised, because if he isn't a benevolent ruler, then his people will stop obeying him'. I'm afraid you don't understand how the dynamic works in reality.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2014 12:45:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/3/2014 11:16:26 AM, Wocambs wrote:
The argument you're making could be just as easily applied to the Soviet Union. 'Stalin's power isn't centralised, because if he isn't a benevolent ruler, then his people will stop obeying him'. I'm afraid you don't understand how the dynamic works in reality.

That is absolute nuts.

Walmart doesn't force people into their store at gunpoint, killing 30 million people as an example.

Stalin did.

That's reality.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2014 1:07:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/3/2014 12:45:22 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 12/3/2014 11:16:26 AM, Wocambs wrote:
The argument you're making could be just as easily applied to the Soviet Union. 'Stalin's power isn't centralised, because if he isn't a benevolent ruler, then his people will stop obeying him'. I'm afraid you don't understand how the dynamic works in reality.

That is absolute nuts.

Walmart doesn't force people into their store at gunpoint, killing 30 million people as an example.

Stalin did.

That's reality.

We're talking about the argument you're using, not comparing Stalin's deeds to Walmart's. The fact is that, over your property, you have absolute control, and thus power is 'centralised'. Workplaces do not feature democracy. Companies are not subservient to their consumers. You say that if they don't, then they will go bankrupt - but I need to buy their stuff. If I don't make a trade, then it isn't just the company that misses out on something. That's why you can sell a thirsty man a bottle of water for $10, or patented medicine to the sick for enormous profit margins. The whole point of the film "The Joneses" was to show the power of advertising. Red Bull is four times more expensive than a no-name brand that is effectively the exact same product, and it's still the biggest energy drink brand in the world. 'Making a profit' is by definition getting more than you're giving, isn't it?
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2014 1:13:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/3/2014 1:07:39 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 12/3/2014 12:45:22 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 12/3/2014 11:16:26 AM, Wocambs wrote:
The argument you're making could be just as easily applied to the Soviet Union. 'Stalin's power isn't centralised, because if he isn't a benevolent ruler, then his people will stop obeying him'. I'm afraid you don't understand how the dynamic works in reality.

That is absolute nuts.

Walmart doesn't force people into their store at gunpoint, killing 30 million people as an example.

Stalin did.

That's reality.

We're talking about the argument you're using, not comparing Stalin's deeds to Walmart's. The fact is that, over your property, you have absolute control, and thus power is 'centralised'. Workplaces do not feature democracy. Companies are not subservient to their consumers. You say that if they don't, then they will go bankrupt - but I need to buy their stuff. If I don't make a trade, then it isn't just the company that misses out on something. That's why you can sell a thirsty man a bottle of water for $10, or patented medicine to the sick for enormous profit margins. The whole point of the film "The Joneses" was to show the power of advertising. Red Bull is four times more expensive than a no-name brand that is effectively the exact same product, and it's still the biggest energy drink brand in the world. 'Making a profit' is by definition getting more than you're giving, isn't it?

I already explained that business with a central power that decides to do as they wish simply because they own the deed to the property are just waiting around for foreclosure and insolvency.

Every private, non-subsidized business's powers are severely limited by the consumer if they want to be able to pay the utility and tax bill at the end of the year. That is reality.

Every State controlled business is limited simply by how many guns they have.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2014 1:16:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The reason why you have people filling up bottles of tap water and slapping ten dollars on them is because the consumers demand it.

If you think a benevolent dictator should step in and say, "hay stupid consumers you will now drink my free tap water," so be it.

Just make sure he has enough guns to control the consumer mob.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2014 2:26:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/3/2014 1:13:00 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
I already explained that business with a central power that decides to do as they wish simply because they own the deed to the property are just waiting around for foreclosure and insolvency.
Every private, non-subsidized business's powers are severely limited by the consumer if they want to be able to pay the utility and tax bill at the end of the year. That is reality.

Would you say that you, in principle, have any control over someone else's property? Of course not. Does an employee have any control over his employer? Of course not. Do the consumers have any control over the company they buy from? Of course not. The owner can do whatever he wants. You seem to think that merely because there are consequences for making certain choices that their power is 'limited'. This is like saying that my freedom to insult you is 'limited' by the fact I might upset you, and you will be nasty to me in future. Power consists in being able to do what you want with what you control, and here, the power of property is clearly absolute. You would have us believe that power is not only controlling that which you are actually in control of, but also must involve control of everyone else. If I own something, I can do with it what I want. You have absolutely no say in the matter. Perhaps you can convince me to make a different decision, but the power to make the decision rests solely in my hands. That is why I brought up Stalin. He ultimately had the power to make decisions, and this is not in any way diminished by the fact that he considered what other people would do if he made a certain decision.

Every State controlled business is limited simply by how many guns they have.

Whereas private property isn't protected by violence or the threat of it?

The reason why you have people filling up bottles of tap water and slapping ten dollars on them is because the consumers demand it.

Lol, what I don't understand is why you free-market fundamentalists always say that 'the consumer demands X', and completely leave out the other half, which is 'the supplier demands Y'. Is it not the case that the consumer makes demands of the supplier to the same extent that the supplier makes demands of the consumer? I that distinction is just made on the fact that one demands money and the other a product, which does not seem to in any way imply that only one party is the party making the demands.

If you think a benevolent dictator should step in and say, "hay stupid consumers you will now drink my free tap water," so be it.

Stupid? This man is dying of thirst.

Just make sure he has enough guns to control the consumer mob.

Is it your hatred of other people that makes you desire a world dominated by private tyranny? There is no democracy in capitalism. That's the point of private property.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2014 3:03:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The reason why you have people filling up bottles of tap water and slapping ten dollars on them is because the consumers demand it.

Lol, what I don't understand is why you free-market fundamentalists always say that 'the consumer demands X', and completely leave out the other half, which is 'the supplier demands Y'. Is it not the case that the consumer makes demands of the supplier to the same extent that the supplier makes demands of the consumer? I that distinction is just made on the fact that one demands money and the other a product, which does not seem to in any way imply that only one party is the party making the demands

That's absurd. No Producer of 10 dollar bottled water is shutting off the supply of tap water.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2014 3:06:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Whereas private property isn't protected by violence or the threat of it?

Apparently Black Ferguson Capitalists didn't have enough guns....
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2014 8:05:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/2/2014 6:11:35 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 12/2/2014 2:34:09 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 12/2/2014 2:27:48 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 12/1/2014 2:58:59 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 11/9/2014 4:49:18 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
When Boris Yeltsin visited the US in 1989, seeing an ordinary Houston supermarket caused him to rethink his "Bolshevik consciousness" and leave the Communist party:

"About a year after the Russian leader left office, a Yeltsin biographer later wrote that on the plane ride to Yeltsin"s next destination, Miami, he was despondent. He couldn"t stop thinking about the plentiful food at the grocery store and what his countrymen had to subsist on in Russia."
http://blog.chron.com...

The funny thing is that you think the U.S.S.R. was actually at some point communist.

Whether you think it was state socialist or state communist is irrelevant. What's relevant is that it potently centralized power in the hands of the state, leading to some of the worst human rights tragedies of all time. http://en.wikipedia.org...

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc, eh?

If you're not willing to have an intelligent discussion on it, instead of throwing out names of fallacies than we're not going to reach a valuable conclusion. The causation is the centralization of power. Since there is no mechanism to allocate resources, there are shortages; since there are shortages, people unnecessarily starve.


You have not proven that the logical fallacy- the one you committed in implying that communism (which I assume was what you meant by "it" in the sentence "What's relevant is that it potently centralized power in the hands of the state, leading to some of the worst human rights tragedies of all time.") inherently (going by the title, and also because the U.S.S.R. was not communist, something you do not dispute) leads to centralization of power- is not, in fact, a logical fallacy. If I were to assume that, in "true" communism, centralization of power would be possible, for the purposes of my argument (I of course contend that centralization of power is not compatible with "true" communism), you would still have committed a logical fallacy by surmising that the correlation, i.e. the number of self-ascribed communist countries to instances of centralized government in those countries, speaks for the causation of centralization of governments presiding over those countries.
You can call me Mark if you like.
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2014 10:37:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/6/2014 8:05:11 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 12/2/2014 6:11:35 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 12/2/2014 2:34:09 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 12/2/2014 2:27:48 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 12/1/2014 2:58:59 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 11/9/2014 4:49:18 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
When Boris Yeltsin visited the US in 1989, seeing an ordinary Houston supermarket caused him to rethink his "Bolshevik consciousness" and leave the Communist party:

"About a year after the Russian leader left office, a Yeltsin biographer later wrote that on the plane ride to Yeltsin"s next destination, Miami, he was despondent. He couldn"t stop thinking about the plentiful food at the grocery store and what his countrymen had to subsist on in Russia."
http://blog.chron.com...

The funny thing is that you think the U.S.S.R. was actually at some point communist.

Whether you think it was state socialist or state communist is irrelevant. What's relevant is that it potently centralized power in the hands of the state, leading to some of the worst human rights tragedies of all time. http://en.wikipedia.org...

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc, eh?

If you're not willing to have an intelligent discussion on it, instead of throwing out names of fallacies than we're not going to reach a valuable conclusion. The causation is the centralization of power. Since there is no mechanism to allocate resources, there are shortages; since there are shortages, people unnecessarily starve.


You have not proven that the logical fallacy- the one you committed in implying that communism (which I assume was what you meant by "it" in the sentence "What's relevant is that it potently centralized power in the hands of the state, leading to some of the worst human rights tragedies of all time.") inherently (going by the title, and also because the U.S.S.R. was not communist, something you do not dispute) leads to centralization of power- is not, in fact, a logical fallacy. If I were to assume that, in "true" communism, centralization of power would be possible, for the purposes of my argument (I of course contend that centralization of power is not compatible with "true" communism), you would still have committed a logical fallacy by surmising that the correlation, i.e. the number of self-ascribed communist countries to instances of centralized government in those countries, speaks for the causation of centralization of governments presiding over those countries.

Definition of Soviet Union (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...): "A former federation of communist republics that occupied the northern half of Asia and part of eastern Europe; capital, Moscow. Created from the Russian empire in the aftermath of the 1917 Russian Revolution, the Soviet Union was the largest country in the world. After World War II, it emerged as a superpower that rivaled the US and led to the Cold War. After decades of repression and economic failure, the Soviet Union was formally dissolved in 1991. Some of its constituents joined a looser confederation, the Commonwealth of Independent States. Full name Union of Soviet Socialist Republics."

Now that we know by undisputed fact that it was a communist nation except to the 5% of loonies who don't, I find that those who are desperate of tried to find a form of communism that fits themselves and so they say "the Soviet Union wasn't communist" because it doesn't fit their silly definition. Often most of these made-up forms of communism are simply utopia that won't ever realistically happen.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2014 8:49:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/7/2014 10:37:45 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 12/6/2014 8:05:11 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 12/2/2014 6:11:35 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 12/2/2014 2:34:09 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 12/2/2014 2:27:48 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 12/1/2014 2:58:59 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 11/9/2014 4:49:18 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
When Boris Yeltsin visited the US in 1989, seeing an ordinary Houston supermarket caused him to rethink his "Bolshevik consciousness" and leave the Communist party:

"About a year after the Russian leader left office, a Yeltsin biographer later wrote that on the plane ride to Yeltsin"s next destination, Miami, he was despondent. He couldn"t stop thinking about the plentiful food at the grocery store and what his countrymen had to subsist on in Russia."
http://blog.chron.com...

The funny thing is that you think the U.S.S.R. was actually at some point communist.

Whether you think it was state socialist or state communist is irrelevant. What's relevant is that it potently centralized power in the hands of the state, leading to some of the worst human rights tragedies of all time. http://en.wikipedia.org...

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc, eh?

If you're not willing to have an intelligent discussion on it, instead of throwing out names of fallacies than we're not going to reach a valuable conclusion. The causation is the centralization of power. Since there is no mechanism to allocate resources, there are shortages; since there are shortages, people unnecessarily starve.


You have not proven that the logical fallacy- the one you committed in implying that communism (which I assume was what you meant by "it" in the sentence "What's relevant is that it potently centralized power in the hands of the state, leading to some of the worst human rights tragedies of all time.") inherently (going by the title, and also because the U.S.S.R. was not communist, something you do not dispute) leads to centralization of power- is not, in fact, a logical fallacy. If I were to assume that, in "true" communism, centralization of power would be possible, for the purposes of my argument (I of course contend that centralization of power is not compatible with "true" communism), you would still have committed a logical fallacy by surmising that the correlation, i.e. the number of self-ascribed communist countries to instances of centralized government in those countries, speaks for the causation of centralization of governments presiding over those countries.

Definition of Soviet Union (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...): "A former federation of communist republics that occupied the northern half of Asia and part of eastern Europe; capital, Moscow. Created from the Russian empire in the aftermath of the 1917 Russian Revolution, the Soviet Union was the largest country in the world. After World War II, it emerged as a superpower that rivaled the US and led to the Cold War. After decades of repression and economic failure, the Soviet Union was formally dissolved in 1991. Some of its constituents joined a looser confederation, the Commonwealth of Independent States. Full name Union of Soviet Socialist Republics."

Now that we know by undisputed fact that it was a communist nation except to the 5% of loonies who don't, I find that those who are desperate of tried to find a form of communism that fits themselves and so they say "the Soviet Union wasn't communist" because it doesn't fit their silly definition. Often most of these made-up forms of communism are simply utopia that won't ever realistically happen.

That's why it helps to be informed in economic matters as well as historical ones. To get a grounding in political economy (communism is a political-economic ideology) you ought to be aware of different political-economic ideologies and their various nuances. Where to begin?

First off, the official name of the Soviet Union was the "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics". The definition of socialism is, per that given by the Oxford Pocket Dictionary of English:

A political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

This may strike you as odd, but the Soviet Union wasn't really even socialist by that definition. As you and I both know (you probably know a lot about history), leadership in the Soviet Union was highly centralized. I now call your attention back to the definition given above:

A political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Is it not hard to see how centralized leadership (the Communist Party dominated the state) is antagonized to control over the economy by "the community as a whole"?

The definition of communism is, also according to the dictionary cited above:

A political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.

You've heard of "state capitalism", correct? The Soviet Union paid all of its manufacturing workers wages and sold the products of their labor at grossly inflated prices. Plus, it had a monopoly thanks to the abolition of private business, so its "communists" were monopoly tycoons in reality. The fact that it paid some people for not working at all is definitely not in accordance with communism. The fact that some people got paid for doing no labor is indicative of a sloppily organized state monopoly capitalist system, and not socialism, or, for that matter communism.

I'm sorry, but your description of the Soviet Union is largely incorrect. But then I'll expect you'll try to prove that the definitions I gave were created by "loonies". Aren't you a history genius? Well, if you are, then I must be an idiot.
You can call me Mark if you like.
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2014 8:52:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2014 8:49:54 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 12/7/2014 10:37:45 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 12/6/2014 8:05:11 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 12/2/2014 6:11:35 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 12/2/2014 2:34:09 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 12/2/2014 2:27:48 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 12/1/2014 2:58:59 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 11/9/2014 4:49:18 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
When Boris Yeltsin visited the US in 1989, seeing an ordinary Houston supermarket caused him to rethink his "Bolshevik consciousness" and leave the Communist party:

"About a year after the Russian leader left office, a Yeltsin biographer later wrote that on the plane ride to Yeltsin"s next destination, Miami, he was despondent. He couldn"t stop thinking about the plentiful food at the grocery store and what his countrymen had to subsist on in Russia."
http://blog.chron.com...

The funny thing is that you think the U.S.S.R. was actually at some point communist.

Whether you think it was state socialist or state communist is irrelevant. What's relevant is that it potently centralized power in the hands of the state, leading to some of the worst human rights tragedies of all time. http://en.wikipedia.org...

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc, eh?

If you're not willing to have an intelligent discussion on it, instead of throwing out names of fallacies than we're not going to reach a valuable conclusion. The causation is the centralization of power. Since there is no mechanism to allocate resources, there are shortages; since there are shortages, people unnecessarily starve.


You have not proven that the logical fallacy- the one you committed in implying that communism (which I assume was what you meant by "it" in the sentence "What's relevant is that it potently centralized power in the hands of the state, leading to some of the worst human rights tragedies of all time.") inherently (going by the title, and also because the U.S.S.R. was not communist, something you do not dispute) leads to centralization of power- is not, in fact, a logical fallacy. If I were to assume that, in "true" communism, centralization of power would be possible, for the purposes of my argument (I of course contend that centralization of power is not compatible with "true" communism), you would still have committed a logical fallacy by surmising that the correlation, i.e. the number of self-ascribed communist countries to instances of centralized government in those countries, speaks for the causation of centralization of governments presiding over those countries.

Definition of Soviet Union (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...): "A former federation of communist republics that occupied the northern half of Asia and part of eastern Europe; capital, Moscow. Created from the Russian empire in the aftermath of the 1917 Russian Revolution, the Soviet Union was the largest country in the world. After World War II, it emerged as a superpower that rivaled the US and led to the Cold War. After decades of repression and economic failure, the Soviet Union was formally dissolved in 1991. Some of its constituents joined a looser confederation, the Commonwealth of Independent States. Full name Union of Soviet Socialist Republics."

Now that we know by undisputed fact that it was a communist nation except to the 5% of loonies who don't, I find that those who are desperate of tried to find a form of communism that fits themselves and so they say "the Soviet Union wasn't communist" because it doesn't fit their silly definition. Often most of these made-up forms of communism are simply utopia that won't ever realistically happen.

That's why it helps to be informed in economic matters as well as historical ones. To get a grounding in political economy (communism is a political-economic ideology) you ought to be aware of different political-economic ideologies and their various nuances. Where to begin?

First off, the official name of the Soviet Union was the "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics". The definition of socialism is, per that given by the Oxford Pocket Dictionary of English:

A political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

This may strike you as odd, but the Soviet Union wasn't really even socialist by that definition. As you and I both know (you probably know a lot about history), leadership in the Soviet Union was highly centralized. I now call your attention back to the definition given above:

A political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Is it not hard to see how centralized leadership (the Communist Party dominated the state) is antagonized to control over the economy by "the community as a whole"?

The definition of communism is, also according to the dictionary cited above:

A political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.

You've heard of "state capitalism", correct? The Soviet Union paid all of its manufacturing workers wages and sold the products of their labor at grossly inflated prices. Plus, it had a monopoly thanks to the abolition of private business, so its "communists" were monopoly tycoons in reality. The fact that it paid some people for not working at all is definitely not in accordance with communism. The fact that some people got paid for doing no labor is indicative of a sloppily organized state monopoly capitalist system, and not socialism, or, for that matter communism.

I'm sorry, but your description of the Soviet Union is largely incorrect. But then I'll expect you'll try to prove that the definitions I gave were created by "loonies". Aren't you a history genius? Well, if you are, then I must be an idiot.

My mom lived in the USSR and she subscribed to the "communists" just like the rest of the people in her country. Remember, it's not as if you had a choice but to go along with it.
You can call me Mark if you like.
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2014 11:28:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2014 8:49:54 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 12/7/2014 10:37:45 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 12/6/2014 8:05:11 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 12/2/2014 6:11:35 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 12/2/2014 2:34:09 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 12/2/2014 2:27:48 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 12/1/2014 2:58:59 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 11/9/2014 4:49:18 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
When Boris Yeltsin visited the US in 1989, seeing an ordinary Houston supermarket caused him to rethink his "Bolshevik consciousness" and leave the Communist party:

"About a year after the Russian leader left office, a Yeltsin biographer later wrote that on the plane ride to Yeltsin"s next destination, Miami, he was despondent. He couldn"t stop thinking about the plentiful food at the grocery store and what his countrymen had to subsist on in Russia."
http://blog.chron.com...

The funny thing is that you think the U.S.S.R. was actually at some point communist.

Whether you think it was state socialist or state communist is irrelevant. What's relevant is that it potently centralized power in the hands of the state, leading to some of the worst human rights tragedies of all time. http://en.wikipedia.org...

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc, eh?

If you're not willing to have an intelligent discussion on it, instead of throwing out names of fallacies than we're not going to reach a valuable conclusion. The causation is the centralization of power. Since there is no mechanism to allocate resources, there are shortages; since there are shortages, people unnecessarily starve.


You have not proven that the logical fallacy- the one you committed in implying that communism (which I assume was what you meant by "it" in the sentence "What's relevant is that it potently centralized power in the hands of the state, leading to some of the worst human rights tragedies of all time.") inherently (going by the title, and also because the U.S.S.R. was not communist, something you do not dispute) leads to centralization of power- is not, in fact, a logical fallacy. If I were to assume that, in "true" communism, centralization of power would be possible, for the purposes of my argument (I of course contend that centralization of power is not compatible with "true" communism), you would still have committed a logical fallacy by surmising that the correlation, i.e. the number of self-ascribed communist countries to instances of centralized government in those countries, speaks for the causation of centralization of governments presiding over those countries.

Definition of Soviet Union (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...): "A former federation of communist republics that occupied the northern half of Asia and part of eastern Europe; capital, Moscow. Created from the Russian empire in the aftermath of the 1917 Russian Revolution, the Soviet Union was the largest country in the world. After World War II, it emerged as a superpower that rivaled the US and led to the Cold War. After decades of repression and economic failure, the Soviet Union was formally dissolved in 1991. Some of its constituents joined a looser confederation, the Commonwealth of Independent States. Full name Union of Soviet Socialist Republics."

Now that we know by undisputed fact that it was a communist nation except to the 5% of loonies who don't, I find that those who are desperate of tried to find a form of communism that fits themselves and so they say "the Soviet Union wasn't communist" because it doesn't fit their silly definition. Often most of these made-up forms of communism are simply utopia that won't ever realistically happen.

That's why it helps to be informed in economic matters as well as historical ones. To get a grounding in political economy (communism is a political-economic ideology) you ought to be aware of different political-economic ideologies and their various nuances. Where to begin?

First off, the official name of the Soviet Union was the "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics". The definition of socialism is, per that given by the Oxford Pocket Dictionary of English:

A political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

This may strike you as odd, but the Soviet Union wasn't really even socialist by that definition. As you and I both know (you probably know a lot about history), leadership in the Soviet Union was highly centralized. I now call your attention back to the definition given above:

It would prefer my definition over yours since the Oxford website has the ability to be updated faster and provide more information than just a pocket dictionary.

A political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Is it not hard to see how centralized leadership (the Communist Party dominated the state) is antagonized to control over the economy by "the community as a whole"?

Government is part of society and government is what's doing the redistribution. Since the Communist Party was meant to represent the people and the people fought for the rise of communism against the tsar, the Russian people are responsible for all actions and policy, both economic and foreign, in Russian history of 1917-1991 because they were the ones who brought the system to power in the first place. Thus power came from the people on what to do.

The definition of communism is, also according to the dictionary cited above:

A political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.\

Just like free market capitalism, there are many small differences between communist theories. Since the government is public (as it is considered everywhere) things owned and supported by the government are a public industry.

You've heard of "state capitalism", correct? The Soviet Union paid all of its manufacturing workers wages and sold the products of their labor at grossly inflated prices. Plus, it had a monopoly thanks to the abolition of private business, so its "communists" were monopoly tycoons in reality. The fact that it paid some people for not working at all is definitely not in accordance with communism. The fact that some people got paid for doing no labor is indicative of a sloppily organized state monopoly capitalist system, and not socialism, or, for that matter communism.

This shows how communism in theory does not work and will never work in the real world. A full communist society is utopia because it can never happen and is flawed as proven by the USSR.

I'm sorry, but your description of the Soviet Union is largely incorrect. But then I'll expect you'll try to prove that the definitions I gave were created by "loonies". Aren't you a history genius? Well, if you are, then I must be an idiot.

Again, web database dictionary > pocket dictionary that can become dated.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2014 11:30:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2014 8:52:30 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 12/9/2014 8:49:54 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 12/7/2014 10:37:45 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 12/6/2014 8:05:11 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 12/2/2014 6:11:35 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 12/2/2014 2:34:09 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 12/2/2014 2:27:48 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 12/1/2014 2:58:59 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 11/9/2014 4:49:18 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
When Boris Yeltsin visited the US in 1989, seeing an ordinary Houston supermarket caused him to rethink his "Bolshevik consciousness" and leave the Communist party:

"About a year after the Russian leader left office, a Yeltsin biographer later wrote that on the plane ride to Yeltsin"s next destination, Miami, he was despondent. He couldn"t stop thinking about the plentiful food at the grocery store and what his countrymen had to subsist on in Russia."
http://blog.chron.com...

The funny thing is that you think the U.S.S.R. was actually at some point communist.

Whether you think it was state socialist or state communist is irrelevant. What's relevant is that it potently centralized power in the hands of the state, leading to some of the worst human rights tragedies of all time. http://en.wikipedia.org...

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc, eh?

If you're not willing to have an intelligent discussion on it, instead of throwing out names of fallacies than we're not going to reach a valuable conclusion. The causation is the centralization of power. Since there is no mechanism to allocate resources, there are shortages; since there are shortages, people unnecessarily starve.


You have not proven that the logical fallacy- the one you committed in implying that communism (which I assume was what you meant by "it" in the sentence "What's relevant is that it potently centralized power in the hands of the state, leading to some of the worst human rights tragedies of all time.") inherently (going by the title, and also because the U.S.S.R. was not communist, something you do not dispute) leads to centralization of power- is not, in fact, a logical fallacy. If I were to assume that, in "true" communism, centralization of power would be possible, for the purposes of my argument (I of course contend that centralization of power is not compatible with "true" communism), you would still have committed a logical fallacy by surmising that the correlation, i.e. the number of self-ascribed communist countries to instances of centralized government in those countries, speaks for the causation of centralization of governments presiding over those countries.

Definition of Soviet Union (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...): "A former federation of communist republics that occupied the northern half of Asia and part of eastern Europe; capital, Moscow. Created from the Russian empire in the aftermath of the 1917 Russian Revolution, the Soviet Union was the largest country in the world. After World War II, it emerged as a superpower that rivaled the US and led to the Cold War. After decades of repression and economic failure, the Soviet Union was formally dissolved in 1991. Some of its constituents joined a looser confederation, the Commonwealth of Independent States. Full name Union of Soviet Socialist Republics."

Now that we know by undisputed fact that it was a communist nation except to the 5% of loonies who don't, I find that those who are desperate of tried to find a form of communism that fits themselves and so they say "the Soviet Union wasn't communist" because it doesn't fit their silly definition. Often most of these made-up forms of communism are simply utopia that won't ever realistically happen.

That's why it helps to be informed in economic matters as well as historical ones. To get a grounding in political economy (communism is a political-economic ideology) you ought to be aware of different political-economic ideologies and their various nuances. Where to begin?

First off, the official name of the Soviet Union was the "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics". The definition of socialism is, per that given by the Oxford Pocket Dictionary of English:

A political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

This may strike you as odd, but the Soviet Union wasn't really even socialist by that definition. As you and I both know (you probably know a lot about history), leadership in the Soviet Union was highly centralized. I now call your attention back to the definition given above:

A political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Is it not hard to see how centralized leadership (the Communist Party dominated the state) is antagonized to control over the economy by "the community as a whole"?

The definition of communism is, also according to the dictionary cited above:

A political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.

You've heard of "state capitalism", correct? The Soviet Union paid all of its manufacturing workers wages and sold the products of their labor at grossly inflated prices. Plus, it had a monopoly thanks to the abolition of private business, so its "communists" were monopoly tycoons in reality. The fact that it paid some people for not working at all is definitely not in accordance with communism. The fact that some people got paid for doing no labor is indicative of a sloppily organized state monopoly capitalist system, and not socialism, or, for that matter communism.

I'm sorry, but your description of the Soviet Union is largely incorrect. But then I'll expect you'll try to prove that the definitions I gave were created by "loonies". Aren't you a history genius? Well, if you are, then I must be an idiot.

My mom lived in the USSR and she subscribed to the "communists" just like the rest of the people in her country. Remember, it's not as if you had a choice but to go along with it.

That's the way society is many times and you have noted communism is about social organization, so in other words order.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 4:23:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
"About a year after the Russian leader left office, a Yeltsin biographer later wrote that on the plane ride to Yeltsin"s next destination, Miami, he was despondent. He couldn"t stop thinking about the plentiful food at the grocery store and what his countrymen had to subsist on in Russia."
http://blog.chron.com...

The funny thing is that you think the U.S.S.R. was actually at some point communist.

Whether you think it was state socialist or state communist is irrelevant. What's relevant is that it potently centralized power in the hands of the state, leading to some of the worst human rights tragedies of all time. http://en.wikipedia.org...

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc, eh?

If you're not willing to have an intelligent discussion on it, instead of throwing out names of fallacies than we're not going to reach a valuable conclusion. The causation is the centralization of power. Since there is no mechanism to allocate resources, there are shortages; since there are shortages, people unnecessarily starve.


You have not proven that the logical fallacy- the one you committed in implying that communism (which I assume was what you meant by "it" in the sentence "What's relevant is that it potently centralized power in the hands of the state, leading to some of the worst human rights tragedies of all time.") inherently (going by the title, and also because the U.S.S.R. was not communist, something you do not dispute) leads to centralization of power- is not, in fact, a logical fallacy. If I were to assume that, in "true" communism, centralization of power would be possible, for the purposes of my argument (I of course contend that centralization of power is not compatible with "true" communism), you would still have committed a logical fallacy by surmising that the correlation, i.e. the number of self-ascribed communist countries to instances of centralized government in those countries, speaks for the causation of centralization of governments presiding over those countries.

Definition of Soviet Union (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...): "A former federation of communist republics that occupied the northern half of Asia and part of eastern Europe; capital, Moscow. Created from the Russian empire in the aftermath of the 1917 Russian Revolution, the Soviet Union was the largest country in the world. After World War II, it emerged as a superpower that rivaled the US and led to the Cold War. After decades of repression and economic failure, the Soviet Union was formally dissolved in 1991. Some of its constituents joined a looser confederation, the Commonwealth of Independent States. Full name Union of Soviet Socialist Republics."

Now that we know by undisputed fact that it was a communist nation except to the 5% of loonies who don't, I find that those who are desperate of tried to find a form of communism that fits themselves and so they say "the Soviet Union wasn't communist" because it doesn't fit their silly definition. Often most of these made-up forms of communism are simply utopia that won't ever realistically happen.

That's why it helps to be informed in economic matters as well as historical ones. To get a grounding in political economy (communism is a political-economic ideology) you ought to be aware of different political-economic ideologies and their various nuances. Where to begin?

First off, the official name of the Soviet Union was the "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics". The definition of socialism is, per that given by the Oxford Pocket Dictionary of English:

A political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

This may strike you as odd, but the Soviet Union wasn't really even socialist by that definition. As you and I both know (you probably know a lot about history), leadership in the Soviet Union was highly centralized. I now call your attention back to the definition given above:

It would prefer my definition over yours since the Oxford website has the ability to be updated faster and provide more information than just a pocket dictionary.

A political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Is it not hard to see how centralized leadership (the Communist Party dominated the state) is antagonized to control over the economy by "the community as a whole"?

Government is part of society and government is what's doing the redistribution. Since the Communist Party was meant to represent the people and the people fought for the rise of communism against the tsar, the Russian people are responsible for all actions and policy, both economic and foreign, in Russian history of 1917-1991 because they were the ones who brought the system to power in the first place. Thus power came from the people on what to do.

Not the case. The Bolsheviks did not account for all of the people of Russia. They were, in fact, a minority in the Russian Social-Democratic Labor Party.

The definition of communism is, also according to the dictionary cited above:

A political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.\

Just like free market capitalism, there are many small differences between communist theories. Since the government is public (as it is considered everywhere) things owned and supported by the government are a public industry.

The thing that communist theories hold in common is abolition of private property. Moreover, you failed to convince me that communism is "just like free-market capitalism" according to my definition due to insufficient proof.

You've heard of "state capitalism", correct? The Soviet Union paid all of its manufacturing workers wages and sold the products of their labor at grossly inflated prices. Plus, it had a monopoly thanks to the abolition of private business, so its "communists" were monopoly tycoons in reality. The fact that it paid some people for not working at all is definitely not in accordance with communism. The fact that some people got paid for doing no labor is indicative of a sloppily organized state monopoly capitalist system, and not socialism, or, for that matter communism.

This shows how communism in theory does not work and will never work in the real world. A full communist society is utopia because it can never happen and is flawed as proven by the USSR.

In asserting that, you're committing a "correlation equals causation" logical fallacy, just as WallStreetAtheist did. Read his posts and you'll realize your mistake.

I'm sorry, but your description of the Soviet Union is largely incorrect. But then I'll expect you'll try to prove that the definitions I gave were created by "loonies". Aren't you a history genius? Well, if you are, then I must be an idiot.

Again, web database dictionary > pocket dictionary that can become dated.
You can call me Mark if you like.
phiLockeraptor
Posts: 233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2014 4:19:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/9/2014 5:26:52 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 11/9/2014 4:49:18 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
When Boris Yeltsin visited the US in 1989, seeing an ordinary Houston supermarket caused him to rethink his "Bolshevik consciousness" and leave the Communist party:

"About a year after the Russian leader left office, a Yeltsin biographer later wrote that on the plane ride to Yeltsin"s next destination, Miami, he was despondent. He couldn"t stop thinking about the plentiful food at the grocery store and what his countrymen had to subsist on in Russia."
http://blog.chron.com...

If he had taken a somewhat more extensive tour, including unemployment lines; and closed factories; and interviews with individuals living paycheck to paycheck, struggling to pay their rent, facing financial ruin because they had no health insurance when they contracted a catastrophic illness; and homeless shelters, and blighted inner cities; and chicken processing plants where employees are worked so excessively and heartlessly that they develop crippling carpal tunnel before they're twenty-five, etc., well, then his impression of the capitalist "good life" might perhaps have been a tad less positive.

You have the exact same thing in Communism, except without the Supermarkets ;)
"Philosophy is a great conversation that never ends"

Writing for this website ----> www.dailyfreethinker.com
phiLockeraptor
Posts: 233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2014 4:20:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/1/2014 3:00:03 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 11/9/2014 5:26:52 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 11/9/2014 4:49:18 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
When Boris Yeltsin visited the US in 1989, seeing an ordinary Houston supermarket caused him to rethink his "Bolshevik consciousness" and leave the Communist party:

"About a year after the Russian leader left office, a Yeltsin biographer later wrote that on the plane ride to Yeltsin"s next destination, Miami, he was despondent. He couldn"t stop thinking about the plentiful food at the grocery store and what his countrymen had to subsist on in Russia."
http://blog.chron.com...

If he had taken a somewhat more extensive tour, including unemployment lines; and closed factories; and interviews with individuals living paycheck to paycheck, struggling to pay their rent, facing financial ruin because they had no health insurance when they contracted a catastrophic illness; and homeless shelters, and blighted inner cities; and chicken processing plants where employees are worked so excessively and heartlessly that they develop crippling carpal tunnel before they're twenty-five, etc., well, then his impression of the capitalist "good life" might perhaps have been a tad less positive.

If he had seen the U.S.-owned supercheap labor in the Third World, he probably would have vomited.

You misunderstand Yeltsin. He did say 'his people', after all. What is another nations workers to him?
"Philosophy is a great conversation that never ends"

Writing for this website ----> www.dailyfreethinker.com