Scioly.org

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!

OpticsNerd wrote:

PM2017 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.

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 personally disagree. While you can't deny that communism killed a lot of people in the USSR and China, you also can't say it ruined them. Stalin transformed a mostly agrarian society into a world superpower in under 25 years that could match the US(While destroying fascism and ending the Holocaust). You also can't blame the famines entirely on communism; look at the losses axis inflicted on the USSR. The same goes with Mao. Before the communists won the civil war industrial infrastructure was negligible, electricity almost non-existent outside of a few small urban areas and immunization also virtually non-existant. In under 30 years he almost doubled the average life-span and tripled the literacy rates.
So I don't know exactly what you mean by it "ruined" them.

LIPX3 wrote:

OpticsNerd wrote:

PM2017 wrote: 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 personally disagree. While you can't deny that communism killed a lot of people in the USSR and China, you also can't say it ruined them. Stalin transformed a mostly agrarian society into a world superpower in under 25 years that could match the US(While destroying fascism and ending the Holocaust). You also can't blame the famines entirely on communism; look at the losses axis inflicted on the USSR. The same goes with Mao. Before the communists won the civil war industrial infrastructure was negligible, electricity almost non-existent outside of a few small urban areas and immunization also virtually non-existant. In under 30 years he almost doubled the average life-span and tripled the literacy rates.
So I don't know exactly what you mean by it "ruined" them.

Did you just defend Stalin? I'm not equivocating all communists with Stalin, but you just defended Stalin. Stalin "destroyed fascism" and replaced it with authoritarianism, and repressed and killed millions of people. A decade after the Holocaust, the USSR under Stalin was vehemently anti-Semitic. Stalin organized the Holodomor, a genocide on par in scale with the Holocaust. I'm not saying communists are all Stalinists, but it's unacceptable to defend Stalin. He is one of the worst people in all of history.

OpticsNerd wrote:

LIPX3 wrote:

OpticsNerd wrote: I personally disagree. While you can't deny that communism killed a lot of people in the USSR and China, you also can't say it ruined them. Stalin transformed a mostly agrarian society into a world superpower in under 25 years that could match the US(While destroying fascism and ending the Holocaust). You also can't blame the famines entirely on communism; look at the losses axis inflicted on the USSR. The same goes with Mao. Before the communists won the civil war industrial infrastructure was negligible, electricity almost non-existent outside of a few small urban areas and immunization also virtually non-existant. In under 30 years he almost doubled the average life-span and tripled the literacy rates.
So I don't know exactly what you mean by it "ruined" them.

Did you just defend Stalin? I'm not equivocating all communists with Stalin, but you just defended Stalin. Stalin "destroyed fascism" and replaced it with authoritarianism, and repressed and killed millions of people. A decade after the Holocaust, the USSR under Stalin was vehemently anti-Semitic. Stalin organized the Holodomor, a genocide on par in scale with the Holocaust. I'm not saying communists are all Stalinists, but it's unacceptable to defend Stalin. He is one of the worst people in all of history.

Hmm... "While you can't deny that communism killed a lot of people in the USSR"
What do you think that statement means?

LIPX3 wrote:

OpticsNerd wrote:

LIPX3 wrote: Did you just defend Stalin? I'm not equivocating all communists with Stalin, but you just defended Stalin. Stalin "destroyed fascism" and replaced it with authoritarianism, and repressed and killed millions of people. A decade after the Holocaust, the USSR under Stalin was vehemently anti-Semitic. Stalin organized the Holodomor, a genocide on par in scale with the Holocaust. I'm not saying communists are all Stalinists, but it's unacceptable to defend Stalin. He is one of the worst people in all of history.

Hmm... "While you can't deny that communism killed a lot of people in the USSR"
What do you think that statement means?

I know you say that, but you also say that Stalin "destroyed fascism and ended the Holocaust." Although it is technically true, it is akin to saying that a mass murderer also once stopped a mass shooting. You also say that you can't say communism didn't ruin them. I would argue that communism did do great damage to these countries, one just has to look at what they did.

TheChiScientist wrote:

LIPX3 wrote:

OpticsNerd wrote: Hmm... "While you can't deny that communism killed a lot of people in the USSR"
What do you think that statement means?

I know you say that, but you also say that Stalin "destroyed fascism and ended the Holocaust." Although it is technically true, it is akin to saying that a mass murderer also once stopped a mass shooting. You also say that you can't say communism didn't ruin them. I would argue that communism did do great damage to these countries, one just has to look at what they did.

I will come to comrade OpticsNerd defense in this situation. While I can agree that while Stalin was responsible for alotta death we can agree that this man was responsible for a lot of good things...

1. Russia was a key player in winning WWII. If the allies didn't have their help then the war would most certainly have gone to the Nazis. Good thing Stalin decided to side with the allies in the end. (Either way he would of fought the Nazis for obious reasons...)
2. Russia went from a poor weak country in the hands of monarchs to a global power with large wealth. Although I will say that they could have implement the 5 year plans better and could have spent the wealth they accumulated on the people and not just weapons... -_- (Dang it Stalin)
3.The damage that communism caused to these countries was mainly because of the western world! Supporters of communism had to fear the capitalists of the western world who wanted to destroy communism. This caused paranioa and violence in these countries that probably wouldn't have occured if they didn't have pressure from western worlds... This caused corruption and made the communist government focus more on it's own exsistance than the people's well being. So blame America for communism not working out...
All I will say is Stalin was a two sided coin but you cannot place all the blame on just him. Look at the bigger picture.

MattChina wrote:

TheChiScientist wrote:

LIPX3 wrote: I know you say that, but you also say that Stalin "destroyed fascism and ended the Holocaust." Although it is technically true, it is akin to saying that a mass murderer also once stopped a mass shooting. You also say that you can't say communism didn't ruin them. I would argue that communism did do great damage to these countries, one just has to look at what they did.

I will come to comrade OpticsNerd defense in this situation. While I can agree that while Stalin was responsible for a lotta death we can agree that this man was responsible for a lot of good things...

1. Russia was a key player in winning WWII. If the allies didn't have their help then the war would most certainly have gone to the Nazis. Good thing Stalin decided to side with the allies in the end. (Either way, he would have fought the Nazis for obvious reasons...)
2. Russia went from a poor weak country in the hands of monarchs to a global power with large wealth. Although I will say that they could have implemented the 5 year plans better and could have spent the wealth they accumulated on the people and not just weapons... -_- (Dang it Stalin)
3. The damage that communism caused to these countries was mainly because of the western world! Supporters of communism had to fear the capitalists of the western world who wanted to destroy communism. This caused paranoia and violence in these countries that probably wouldn't have occurred if they didn't have pressure from western worlds... This caused corruption and made the communist government focus more on its own existence than the people's well being. So blame America for communism not working out...
All I will say is Stalin was a two-sided coin but you cannot place all the blame on just him. Look at the bigger picture.

I think it was more because Stalin was a paranoid cynical and psychopathic man

TheChiScientist wrote:

MattChina wrote:

TheChiScientist wrote: I will come to comrade OpticsNerd defense in this situation. While I can agree that while Stalin was responsible for a lotta death we can agree that this man was responsible for a lot of good things...

1. Russia was a key player in winning WWII. If the allies didn't have their help then the war would most certainly have gone to the Nazis. Good thing Stalin decided to side with the allies in the end. (Either way, he would have fought the Nazis for obvious reasons...)
2. Russia went from a poor weak country in the hands of monarchs to a global power with large wealth. Although I will say that they could have implemented the 5 year plans better and could have spent the wealth they accumulated on the people and not just weapons... -_- (Dang it Stalin)
3. The damage that communism caused to these countries was mainly because of the western world! Supporters of communism had to fear the capitalists of the western world who wanted to destroy communism. This caused paranoia and violence in these countries that probably wouldn't have occurred if they didn't have pressure from western worlds... This caused corruption and made the communist government focus more on its own existence than the people's well being. So blame America for communism not working out...
All I will say is Stalin was a two-sided coin but you cannot place all the blame on just him. Look at the bigger picture.

I think it was more because Stalin was a paranoid cynical and psychopathic man

That was beaten by his father and yes I think that lead to those characteristics. Also it definetly didn't help that the Americans were always trying to overthrow communism... (Thus his paranoia florishes)

TheChiScientist wrote:

LIPX3 wrote:

OpticsNerd wrote: Hmm... "While you can't deny that communism killed a lot of people in the USSR"
What do you think that statement means?

I know you say that, but you also say that Stalin "destroyed fascism and ended the Holocaust." Although it is technically true, it is akin to saying that a mass murderer also once stopped a mass shooting. You also say that you can't say communism didn't ruin them. I would argue that communism did do great damage to these countries, one just has to look at what they did.

I will come to comrade OpticsNerd defense in this situation. While I can agree that while Stalin was responsible for alotta death we can agree that this man was responsible for a lot of good things...

1. Russia was a key player in winning WWII. If the allies didn't have their help then the war would most certainly have gone to the Nazis. Good thing Stalin decided to side with the allies in the end. (Either way he would of fought the Nazis for obious reasons...)
2. Russia went from a poor weak country in the hands of monarchs to a global power with large wealth. Although I will say that they could have implement the 5 year plans better and could have spent the wealth they accumulated on the people and not just weapons... -_- (Dang it Stalin)
3.The damage that communism caused to these countries was mainly because of the western world! Supporters of communism had to fear the capitalists of the western world who wanted to destroy communism. This caused paranioa and violence in these countries that probably wouldn't have occured if they didn't have pressure from western worlds... This caused corruption and made the communist government focus more on it's own exsistance than the people's well being. So blame America for communism not working out...
All I will say is Stalin was a two sided coin but you cannot place all the blame on just him. Look at the bigger picture.