Scioly.org

OpticsNerd wrote:

PM2017 wrote:

LIPX3 wrote: One way would be that it led to a lower standard of living than the capitalist systems.

Namely, a standard of living where you might no longer be living

It's not really a fair comparison. Many former communist countries had low standards of living before they even became communist(Republic of China for example).
Plus, it's not like capitalism doesn't have the same problems. Look at what capitalism did to Africa.

If you think African countries tend to be capitalist I would recommend taking a closer look.

OpticsNerd wrote:

PM2017 wrote:

LIPX3 wrote: One way would be that it led to a lower standard of living than the capitalist systems.

Namely, a standard of living where you might no longer be living

It's not really a fair comparison. Many former communist countries had low standards of living before they even became communist(Republic of China for example).
Plus, it's not like capitalism doesn't have the same problems. Look at what capitalism did to Africa.

For a great example, look at West and East Germany, and how much lower the standard of living was in East Germany.

Guys... Starting from the front of this thread...

We went from Health Care to Communism...

Unome wrote:

OpticsNerd wrote:

PM2017 wrote: Namely, a standard of living where you might no longer be living

It's not really a fair comparison. Many former communist countries had low standards of living before they even became communist(Republic of China for example).
Plus, it's not like capitalism doesn't have the same problems. Look at what capitalism did to Africa.

If you think African countries tend to be capitalist I would recommend taking a closer look.

I think he means European imperialism before the revolutions of the 20th century (?)

UTF-8 U+6211 U+662F wrote:

Unome wrote:

OpticsNerd wrote: It's not really a fair comparison. Many former communist countries had low standards of living before they even became communist(Republic of China for example).
Plus, it's not like capitalism doesn't have the same problems. Look at what capitalism did to Africa.

If you think African countries tend to be capitalist I would recommend taking a closer look.

I think he means European imperialism before the revolutions of the 20th century (?)

I would certainly not call European colonial mercantilist economies capitalist, particularly considering early proponents of free markets brought up their arguments specifically to oppose mercantilism.

Unome wrote:

UTF-8 U+6211 U+662F wrote:

Unome wrote: If you think African countries tend to be capitalist I would recommend taking a closer look.

I think he means European imperialism before the revolutions of the 20th century (?)

I would certainly not call European colonial mercantilist economies capitalist, particularly considering early proponents of free markets brought up their arguments specifically to oppose mercantilism.

Not sure what you're talking about? By the late 1800s (when the Scramble for Africa started) Europe was firmly not mercantilist. I think you've got your time periods mixed up.

OpticsNerd wrote:

PM2017 wrote:

LIPX3 wrote: One way would be that it led to a lower standard of living than the capitalist systems.

Namely, a standard of living where you might no longer be living

It's not really a fair comparison. Many former communist countries had low standards of living before they even became communist(Republic of China for example).
Plus, it's not like capitalism doesn't have the same problems. Look at what capitalism did to Africa.

I'd like to argue back with a few points:
1. The sufferings of Africa were not due to the instatement of a capitalist economy within a nation -- rather, they were due to foreigners arguably invading other people's lands, and subjecting them to all sorts of horrors. Therefore, you can't really argue that capitalism ruined Africa like communism (and I guess socialism) ruined China, the USSR, Venezuela, and a whole host of other countries.
2. Saying that they already had a low standard of living doesn't say much! If a system helps to lower an already lower standard of living, that is not a merit for the system. On the other hand, capitalism has helped bring many third-world countries out of the ditches, and allows for massive amounts of innovation (something that communism decidedly fails at.) Therefore, not only does capitalism not have the same problems, it helps solve those very problems!

I love how posting something about Communism here spams me with notifications...

OpticsNerd wrote:I love how posting something about Communism here spams me with notifications...

Because you are supporting the deadliest ideology of the 20th century.

PM2017 wrote:

OpticsNerd wrote:

PM2017 wrote: Namely, a standard of living where you might no longer be living

It's not really a fair comparison. Many former communist countries had low standards of living before they even became communist(Republic of China for example).
Plus, it's not like capitalism doesn't have the same problems. Look at what capitalism did to Africa.

I'd like to argue back with a few points:
1. The sufferings of Africa were not due to the instatement of a capitalist economy within a nation -- rather, they were due to foreigners arguably invading other people's lands, and subjecting them to all sorts of horrors. Therefore, you can't really argue that capitalism ruined Africa like communism (and I guess socialism) ruined China, the USSR, Venezuela, and a whole host of other countries.
2. Saying that they already had a low standard of living doesn't say much! If a system helps to lower an already lower standard of living, that is not a merit for the system. On the other hand, capitalism has helped bring many third-world countries out of the ditches, and allows for massive amounts of innovation (something that communism decidedly fails at.) Therefore, not only does capitalism not have the same problems, it helps solve those very problems!

To play devil's advocate:

1. Many socialists/communists renounce the USSR/Maoist China as as little more than state capitalism ("State capitalism is an economic system in which the state undertakes commercial (i.e. for-profit) economic activity and where the means of production are organized and managed as state-owned business enterprises"). You're doing a disservice by lumping USSR, China, Venezuela, etc. into one box of "socialism". Socialism is a broad range of ideas, and it doesn't make sense to compare something like the USSR to (for instance) Rojava or anarchist Catalonia, which were both also radically socialist.

2. Russia experienced huge leaps forward under Lenin and Stalin. Russia was not industrial under tsarist rule and in the middle of WWI when the Russian Revolution happened. After WWII, the Soviets experienced huge losses. It's at least noteworthy then that Stalin managed to convert a largely agarian society into a major world power that could rival the US in such a narrow timespan. (This is not to praise Stalin but only in the interest of fairness.) After 1947, there were no more major famines in the USSR despite continuing droughts. This CIA report suggests Americans and Soviets ate around the same amount of food in the '80s. While we should obviously condemn the Soviet Union for all of its crimes against humanity under Stalin, it did experience a massive period of growth.