Communist countries

[soylentgreen]

[

Yes. Capitalists are people who organize production in such a fashion to generate profit.
A socialist society would need people to be able to do this as well.
Better they than the plumbers.
.

No, capitalism is not an exclusive economic theory to generates profit. All economic theories do that. It is the basis of economics. Capitalism does not generate profit it merely has a specific lean as to where profit goes and who it goes to.

What constrains the excesses of socialism?

The same thing that constrains the excesses of government, the people.

In that the situation, the owners, who are the workers, have organized production in such a fashion so as to accrue profit


If the product is worth more than its parts.
Socialist production also aims for production for profit.

And again, you really do not understand economics if you think capitalism creates profit.

Since the socialist production has to aim for profit, its objection to investment would seem to negatively impact such socialist production

I have never said that there is an objection to investment. I just tried to educate you on the fact that investment does not create wealth. Turning raw material into a product creates wealth.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Millions of Russians fought for the Tsar against the Bolsheviks, so yes, it’s pretty clear that there were lots of folks who didn’t want him and his entire family to be murdered by a death squad.

And a proportionate percentage of the people in the American colonies fought against the Revolutionaries who were attempting to overthrow the "internationally recognized" government of those colonies. Are you trying to tell me that that makes the United States of America an illegitimate country?

Considering that by that point the Bolsheviks had already murdered thousands of their own people and waged wars of aggression against numerous neighbors, such as Poland, there was no obligation to pretend that they were a legitimate government in any way. As it was, the United States recognized the USSR in 1933.....at which point Soviet spies were already hard at work actually trying to undermine the West.

Ahhh, now I understand, it is ONLY the recognition of the government by the government of the United States of America that renders it an "internationally recognized" government.

Aside from the ones they recruited to serve in their new East German puppet state.....and those they’d helped develop weaponry and supplied with resources for years.

Possibly you have never heard of either "Operation Paperclip" or General Reinhard Gehlen.

Which is far different than an active, government sanctioned and ordered program of supporting the Nazis....which is what was going on in the USSR.

The Russians were doing what is known as "buying time". The Russians were fully aware that Hitler intended to invade Russia, kill millions, enslave millions more, and annex vast swaths of Russian territory so that his "Aryans" could have liebensraum - they simply weren't ready to defend themselves and were gearing themselves up to do so. In such a matter of "national survival" the Russians believed that ANY action which would "preserve the union" was acceptable.

Your desperation to try and draw equivalence between the USSR and US is laughable.

I don't "draw equivalence between the USSR and US", I merely point out that the GOVERNMENTS of BOTH the USSR and the US were (and apparently still are) doing to the other what they condemn the other for doing to themselves.

An outside reader would note your desperate attempts to justify Soviet repression and note that you have no credible to declare others to be “delusional” whatsoever.

The day you see me saying anything even remotely like "Stalin was a great, wise, and humane leader." is the day that someone hacks my computer.

Lol only if one considers supporting the internationally recognized government to be “undermining” Russia :roll:

Considering that countries OTHER than the . . . Oh, I forgot, a country does NOT have a government that is "internationally recognized" until such time as the government of the United States of America "recognizes" it.

Thank you for letting me know that there were no countries anywhere in the world prior to 1883.

 

[Tigerace117]

And a proportionate percentage of the people in the American colonies fought against the Revolutionaries who were attempting to overthrow the "internationally recognized" government of those colonies. Are you trying to tell me that that makes the United States of America an illegitimate country?



Ahhh, now I understand, it is ONLY the recognition of the government by the government of the United States of America that renders it an "internationally recognized" government.



Possibly you have never heard of either "Operation Paperclip" or General Reinhard Gehlen.



The Russians were doing what is known as "buying time". The Russians were fully aware that Hitler intended to invade Russia, kill millions, enslave millions more, and annex vast swaths of Russian territory so that his "Aryans" could have liebensraum - they simply weren't ready to defend themselves and were gearing themselves up to do so. In such a matter of "national survival" the Russians believed that ANY action which would "preserve the union" was acceptable.



I don't "draw equivalence between the USSR and US", I merely point out that the GOVERNMENTS of BOTH the USSR and the US were (and apparently still are) doing to the other what they condemn the other for doing to themselves.



The day you see me saying anything even remotely like "Stalin was a great, wise, and humane leader." is the day that someone hacks my computer.



Considering that countries OTHER than the . . . Oh, I forgot, a country does NOT have a government that is "internationally recognized" until such time as the government of the United States of America "recognizes" it.

Thank you for letting me know that there were no countries anywhere in the world prior to 1883.

Significantly higher numbers fought for the Tsar, actually.....with the added bonus that unlike the Bolsheviks, the Patriots didn’t commit mass murder of those who fought against them for years after the Revolution. Again, your desperate attempt to draw an equivalence is laughable.

You better hope not.....because if the United States is an “illegitimate” nation, then there is nothing stopping us from obliterating the Canadian military and annexing you. After all, “illegitimate” states have no obligation to abide by any treaties or alliances.

Numerous countries recognized the USSR well after the US did....none of which changes the fact that the US has no obligation to conduct any sort of relations with a government that we don’t recognize.

Apparently you’ve never heard about the Molotov Ribbentrop Pact. Or about folks like Vincenz Müller.

The Soviets were engaged in what was known as “aiding a genocidal regime in order to be able to annex the Baltic States and go after Finland”. The Soviets were still sending trains full of aid to Nazi Germany pretty much up to the minute that Barbarossa kicks off.

Except that is patently untrue; the US government is not assisting far right wing militants in an effort to destabilize Russian society......or Soviet society before that.

One is capable of defending Soviet repression even without defending Stalin.


Considering that the overwhelming majority of nations— quite possibly every single one on earth— did not recognize the Bolsheviks as the legitimate government of Russia, your argument is laughable.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Significantly higher numbers fought for the Tsar, actually.....with the added bonus that unlike the Bolsheviks, the Patriots didn’t commit mass murder of those who fought against them for years after the Revolution. Again, your desperate attempt to draw an equivalence is laughable.

You better hope not.....because if the United States is an “illegitimate” nation, then there is nothing stopping us from obliterating the Canadian military and annexing you. After all, “illegitimate” states have no obligation to abide by any treaties or alliances.

Numerous countries recognized the USSR well after the US did....none of which changes the fact that the US has no obligation to conduct any sort of relations with a government that we don’t recognize.

Apparently you’ve never heard about the Molotov Ribbentrop Pact. Or about folks like Vincenz Müller.

The Soviets were engaged in what was known as “aiding a genocidal regime in order to be able to annex the Baltic States and go after Finland”. The Soviets were still sending trains full of aid to Nazi Germany pretty much up to the minute that Barbarossa kicks off.

Except that is patently untrue; the US government is not assisting far right wing militants in an effort to destabilize Russian society......or Soviet society before that.

One is capable of defending Soviet repression even without defending Stalin.


Considering that the overwhelming majority of nations— quite possibly every single one on earth— did not recognize the Bolsheviks as the legitimate government of Russia, your argument is laughable.

I have to admit that your

"What THEY did (with respect to a specific set of actions) is totally unacceptable for two reasons

[1] because THEY did something else

and

[2] because THEY did it
​

while

what WE did (with respect to an identical set of actions) is totally acceptable because

[A] WE didn't do the same something else that they did

and

because WE did it."
​

position is totally unassailable.

 

[Tigerace117]

I have to admit that your

"What THEY did (with respect to a specific set of actions) is totally unacceptable for two reasons

[1] because THEY did something else

and

[2] because THEY did it
​

while

what WE did (with respect to an identical set of actions) is totally acceptable because

[A] WE didn't do the same something else that they did

and

because WE did it."
​

position is totally unassailable.

In other words you can’t defend your desperate attempts to draw an equivalence between the US and the USSR so you are fleeing with your tail between your legs. Got it.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

In other words you can’t defend your desperate attempts to draw an equivalence between the US and the USSR so you are fleeing with your tail between your legs. Got it.

Not quite.

It's because I realize the futility of attempting to fight stupid.

 

[Tigerace117]

Not quite.

It's because I realize the futility of attempting to fight stupid.

Oh, so you finally took a look at your own posts huh. About time.

Go make another thread fantasizing about China getting Hawaii or some other idiocy.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Oh, so you finally took a look at your own posts huh. About time.

Go make another thread fantasizing about China getting Hawaii or some other idiocy.

Some people look at discussion sites as places to give and receive information so that they and others may become better informed.

Other people look at discussion sites as game shows where they can claim to "win" regardless of the objective evidence.

Obviously you fall into the latter category.

 

[Athanasius68]

No, capitalism is not an exclusive economic theory to generates profit. All economic theories do that. It is the basis of economics. Capitalism does not generate profit it merely has a specific lean as to where profit goes and who it goes to.

Yes-- it goes to the owners.
If the workers own the company they accrue the profit.
A worker owned concern is not uncapitalist.

The same thing that constrains the excesses of government, the people.

A dodge of an answer.

And again, you really do not understand economics if you think capitalism creates profit.

Value in excess of component part creates profit.
The question is which system is better geared for achieving this end.
And that would seem to be capitalism.

I have never said that there is an objection to investment. I just tried to educate you on the fact that investment does not create wealth. Turning raw material into a product creates wealth.[

Investment gives greater opportunity for this to occur.

 

[Tigerace117]

Some people look at discussion sites as places to give and receive information so that they and others may become better informed.

Other people look at discussion sites as game shows where they can claim to "win" regardless of the objective evidence.

Obviously you fall into the latter category.

Except, of course, you haven’t made anyone better informed. Your claims are often downright ignorant(for example, your fantasy about the US using Hawaii as collateral) or outright laughable(your claim that supporting the internationally recognized Russian government against what amounted to a terrorist cell was “undermining the Russian government).

 

[soylentgreen]

Yes-- it goes to the owners.
If the workers own the company they accrue the profit.
A worker owned concern is not uncapitalist.

Except for that one major difference. Which is that in a workers coop the means of production is owned by the workers. And again, i repeat, capitalism does not create profit it merely directs who gets it. Communism does not create profit it merely directs who gets it.

A dodge of an answer.

Not at all. That is the answer to that question. People through a voting system get to control the excesses of government. It is people who stand up and fight the excesses of business as well.

Value in excess of component part creates profit.
The question is which system is better geared for achieving this end.
And that would seem to be capitalism.

Not at all. Workers coops have and are surviving quite well and they are not a capitalist set up. It is simply just the ignorance and uneducated view of americans that allow you to believe that capitalism does a better job.

Investment gives greater opportunity for this to occur.

Except when capitalism or communism or in fact any ism is carried to excess.

 

[Athanasius68]

Except for that one major difference. Which is that in a workers coop the means of production is owned by the workers. And again, i repeat, capitalism does not create profit it merely directs who gets it. Communism does not create profit it merely directs who gets it.

Yes-- and the worker coop today functions within the capitalist environment.
It would run differently in a socialist environment.

Not at all. Workers coops have and are surviving quite well and they are not a capitalist set up.

They are in a capitalist set-up because they function within a capitalist environment.
They are not islands unto themselves.

Socialism has to be considered on its own terms.
How does investment function in a socialist society? Can non-workers of a particular firm buy shares of it and thus earn a piece of its wealth? How does such a firm acquire parts from other firms (which are those other firms finished product-- those firms after all are trying to make a profit?).
Those are the types of things have to be considered.

 

[soylentgreen]

Yes-- and the worker coop today functions within the capitalist environment.
It would run differently in a socialist environment.




They are in a capitalist set-up because they function within a capitalist environment.
They are not islands unto themselves.

Socialism has to be considered on its own terms.
How does investment function in a socialist society? Can non-workers of a particular firm buy shares of it and thus earn a piece of its wealth? How does such a firm acquire parts from other firms (which are those other firms finished product-- those firms after all are trying to make a profit?).
Those are the types of things have to be considered.

How would you know as there is no such thing as a socialist environment. As well economics remain the same in either ism.

Your mistake is thinking that only capitalism contains the ideology of profit. Regardless of whether they are in a capitalist environment they are still s=run under a communist ideal.

Those questions have already been answered by the fact that workers coops exist and function with those things such as investment. As well as being answered by basic 101 economic theory.

Again your mistake is that you are uneducated not that socialism requires needs beyond your understanding.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Yes-- and the worker coop today functions within the capitalist environment.
It would run differently in a socialist environment.

At "worst" the "worker co-op" would run at a "non-profit/break even/provide for a contingency reserve" basis. Should it not do that, then it would fail. More likely it would run at a "non-profit/break even/provide for a contingency reserve AND provide for an expansion reserve" basis.

They are in a capitalist set-up because they function within a capitalist environment.
They are not islands unto themselves.

Now THERE'S a blinding flash of the obvious.

Socialism has to be considered on its own terms.

Please provide the definition that YOU use for "Socialism".

How does investment function in a socialist society?

Much the same way that it does in a "capitalist" society, those who can would pool their resources in order to do, collectively, that which they cannot do individually.

Can non-workers of a particular firm buy shares of it and thus earn a piece of its wealth?

Possibly yes, and possibly no. The alternative would be for a "worker co-op" that specializes in financial transactions and/or the investment of pooled funds to LEND another "worker co-op" the funds that the second requires WITHOUT "ownership". The first "worker co-op) (read as "lenders") would receive a piece of the second "worker's co-op" (read as "borrowers") enterprise's wealth through the interest that the second "worker's co-op" pays on the money that the first "worker's co-op" has loaned to it.

How does such a firm acquire parts from other firms (which are those other firms finished product-- those firms after all are trying to make a profit?).

In the same way that a "capitalist co-op" (read as "share issuing company") does, negotiate a price and then pay for it with money. This is also the same way that a "private enterprise" (read as "co-op with only one member") acquires parts from other firms.

Those are the types of things have to be considered.

And, if one is even remotely aware of how industrial societies (in fact any society that has advance beyond a "hunter-gatherer subsistence economy") function, the "consideration" should take less than 30 seconds.