Famous people talk about Russian

Org said:

I'm going to challenge the basic assumption of that post. See, socialism has existed -

Click to expand...

Until it fails, and then you'll claim it wasn't really socialism, we know the drill. But to be fair, it is an important distinction you raise, that I steamrolled, that nations can operate under all sorts of regimes and still function, and in some cases, be prosperous (yes even in a rare few cases Relatively prosperous!*). And while everyone knows it would ultimately be far more effective to implement a much more free market, some cultures/people may not be in a place at certain times in their development where they can handle it...so for their people at a certain time, a socialistic regime may be or may have been more effective than other options. But rather than socialism being a stepping stone to communism, socialistic regimes, even self proclaimed communist regimes, can be a stepping stone to a capitalistic democracy. Everyone should be aware that even terrifying regimes can be successful, just look at Nazi Germany for the touchstone, or even modern Saudi Arabia for a more nuanced version. I do use broad shorthand in such claims and it's important to point out because it's true about all success/failures. A nation, or individual, or company, can thrive even with terrible <management, business practice, finance, etc.>, or fail miserable even with great <management, business practice, etc.>. It's an important point to be sure.

In Spain, lacking a state, members of the population established a rather successful system of socialist anarchism. Hungary under the CP was a positive thing, lacking many of the problems it has under capitalism today. In Venezuela, socialism thrives, but needs some adjustments. In Cuba, despite problems, socialism has greatly improved the lives of the people, and there's hope for the switch to a market economy.

Click to expand...

Venezuela is an example of "in spite of socialism". They have enjoyed meeting the massively developed and developing nations demand for oil which they stumbled on in their backyard. They could thrive with nearly any government under such circumstances. Have you worked with oil rich areas? They can survive with incredibly outdated process, procedures, technology, etc., because they are earning so much from a well that it just doesn't matter. Some people can look at a successful business person who is a completely arrogant asshole and conclude they are successful because they are an arrogant asshole and then try to emulate them. Or more likely, they are successful in spite of that flaw... Very high profit companies can do all sorts of crazy **** and still make a fortune, doesn't means it's good or best.

Ikari said:

Point is no commie country has ever come into power without massive murder and genocide. This is measured fact. To establish a.communist country takes about half your population typically.

Click to expand...

I'm glad the US didn't have a Civil War or anything.

Modernization involves lots of disruption and killing. It happened in the US and Europe before cameras so we tend not to talk about it. The death and disruption caused by colonialism, fueled by capitalism, and the industrial revolution, rivals anything Stalin concocted.

Russia and China were modernized by communist regimes. The results were predictably awful in term so of loss of life (just like they were in the US were we slaughtered several million native Americans, destroyed their cultures, and engaged in a slave trade that killed maybe 20 Africans). At the end of our modernization orgy we had an advanced economy with high literacy and infrastructure. At the end of Russia and China's modernization spree, they got the same result (in a shorter time). They essentially went from feudal states with 10% literacy to modern economies with 100% literacy.

Modernization is the issue: not the form it takes. It would have been nice if Russia and China could have modernized with George Washington at the helm (unless you were black or an Indian of course), but George Washington wasn't available. It was feudalism or Communism. The Russians and Chinese made the right choice.

I'd note that Cuba modernized with a minimal of killing even with the US constantly threatening them and strangling their economy. Again, Cuba didn't have George Washington to choose from -- they had Castro versus the vicious thug and gangster Batista. They chose wisely.

So get off this US good, Communism bad kick. It's totally ahistorical.

A footnote: I sure wish Russia had been left to modernize Afghanistan and had slaughtered the acid-throwing jihadist. Afghanstan would be a modern secular nation today. But instead Commie-hating Reagan supported and armed anti-modernist jihadist like Bin Ladin, leading directly to 9-11. Stoooopid.

head of joaquin said:

I'm glad the US didn't have a Civil War or anything.

Click to expand...

Indeed we did, our bloodiest battle ever. Under 700,000 deaths; far cry from the 10s of millions from the commie countries.

DDD said:

I think he means that since no Communism has ever occurred yet in any country, some tried it through socialism but did not made it (e.g., Russia, China), that socialism should be blamed for the genocide. Not commies but socialists.

Click to expand...

The failure is on the part of communism, and this is the point. No communist regime has ever been established that didn't stall in the stages of communism and fall to murderous despots and tyranny. It always stalls, and it almost always stalls and falls to murderous despots. Communism has been used world wide as an excuse to murder a population and put them under state control. Whenever we look at any communist state that was able to establish itself, this is what we see. This is measurement, this is reality. It is because communism philosophy itself is fatally flawed and doomed to collapse in upon itself. It does not properly account for humans, for human nature. It makes these lofty ideals and grandiose proposals, but it can never be realized and all attempts to realize it have fallen to some of the worst atrocities committed by humans. Measured fact. People can try to argue around it all you want, but they're arguing footprints in the rocks; the deceitful god. It's been attempted several times, we have measured the results and seen the consistency of them. There is no longer mystery and magic, only measurement and science. Communism fails and will always fail in horrible, murderous ways.

Ikari said:

Indeed we did, our bloodiest battle ever. Under 700,000 deaths; far cry from the 10s of millions from the commie countries.

Click to expand...

You forgot the 20M slaves killed in the slave trade. Can't blame Russia and China for that. It was all us! And you forgot the Indian genocide. Add a few million to that.

A million here, a million there, it starts to add up.

But if your argument reduces to communists being more efficient at killing than we were, despite ourselves, that's not much of a rousing defense of our system.

head of joaquin said:

You forgot the 20M slaves killed in the slave trade. Can't blame Russia and China for that. It was all us!

But if your argument reduces to communists were more efficient at killing than we were, that's not much rousing defense of our system.

Click to expand...

Yeah, and the last thing you'll hear me defend was the slave trade. Indeed a sad venture by humans. We still do it, though not quite on the same level. And "we" doesn't mean just America, I mean humans on whole.

Ikari said:

Yeah, and the last thing you'll hear me defend was the slave trade. Indeed a sad venture by humans. We still do it, though not quite on the same level. And "we" doesn't mean just America, I mean humans on whole.

Click to expand...

My sense is, criticisms of Russia from the west are usually part of a larger attempt to erase the atrocities the west committed in its journey to modernity.

And that's why I'm so keen on responding to "commie" talk.

But I think you really raising a larger issue, perhaps inadvertently, as to whether modernization is worth it. I think it is (but easy for me to say), and libertarians tend to think not. Or rather, they don't seem to see the connection between our standard of living and modernization (whether through capitalism or communism). But I think the alternative of living in the 12th century is not much of one. And that's really where libertarianism would leave us.

head of joaquin said:

My sense is, criticisms of Russia from the west are usually part of a larger attempt to erase the atrocities the west committed in its journey to modernity.

And that's why I'm so keen on responding to "commie" talk.

But I think you really raising a larger issue, perhaps inadvertently, as to whether modernization is worth it. I think it is (but easy for me to say), and libertarians tend to think not. Or rather, they don't seem to see the connection between our standard of living and modernization (whether through capitalism or communism). But I think the alternative of living in the 12th century is not much of one. And that's really where libertarianism would leave us.

Click to expand...

Modernization is not at odds with libertarianism. This is just more lies and slander by those who do not understand the overarching philosophy.

Ikari said:

Modernization is not at odds with libertarianism. This is just more lies and slander by those who do not understand the overarching philosophy.

Click to expand...

Oh yes it is! You don't get modern roads, industry, clinics, hospitals, universities without Big Gummit. That's why we have them and Russia has them, but Somalia doesn't.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want your dubious libertarian freedom, prepare to live in a compound without running water and no modern medicine.

head of joaquin said:

Oh yes it is! You don't get modern roads, industry, clinics, hospitals without Big Gummit. That's why we have them and Russia has them, but Somalia doesn't.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want your dubious libertarian freedom, prepare to live in a compound without running water and no modern medicine.

Click to expand...

This just shows you don't understand the fundamentals of libertarian philosophy.

Ikari said:

This just shows you don't understand the fundamentals of libertarian philosophy.

Click to expand...

I keep waiting for a self-proclaimed libertarian to explain them, but they just bumble into some nonsense about markets and how Big Gummit is mean on them.