You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Mutual Aid a funadamental basis of capitalism supported by an "anarchist" 109
China is revisionist.
The USSR increased the living standards of it's people exponentially. It literally took a nation of illiterate peasants and in one generation sent the first person to space.
I think China used capitalism to become a powerhouse just like the USA did.
I'm not aware of much success in the USSR other than the space program.
Quality of life is better in under socialism.
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.2190/AD12-7RYT-XVAR-3R2U
This paper that I've linked you proves it.
You're unaware because the capitalist class doesn't want you to know.
Yeah in the short term socialism is always better. Venezuela and the USSR had some great times before the collapse. The USA is also doing great right now under most measures but we are heading for collapse.
I think in general democracies lead to more socialism and eventually a collapse.
The USSR collapsed because of market reforms. It's because they abandoned socialism that they collapsed, that's the reality of the situation.
As for socialism being better in the short term, the USSR was around for a long time. Considering the quality of life of the population over profit is a going to make a better life for your population.
Consider pre-soviet ussr, the population was poor and uneducated, despite this they created an industrialized society in about a generation.
I honestly wouldn't say the USA is doing great right now. Do you live in a large city? It's hard to support capitalism when there are homeless children while there are empty houses.
So they ran out of food because of "market reforms'?
I would define long term as 50-100 years.
I think if we scaled back socialism including military spending the poor would benefit. If you reward poverty and poor decisions you get more.
The USSR lasted from 1917 to 1991, so it fits the criteria set by you for a long term success.
"So they ran out of food because of "market reforms'"
What are you referring to? The famines they inherited from the tsarist regime? I really don't know what you are talking about.
"I think if we scaled back socialism including military spending the poor would benefit"
I agree with the scaling back the military, but I wouldn't call the military socialism. Socialism isn't just government doing stuff. Socialism is when production is directed towards social need, not profit. Amoungst other things.
Socialization and nationalization aren't the same thing.
http://blog.victimsofcommunism.org/breadlines-and-shortages-the-soviet-food-supply/
Basically all government is socialism. We could have free healthcare but instead we have "free" military.
You've never read communist litterateur then.
This is ideological propaganda.
Why wasn't Napoleon a socialist then? He nationalized the tabacco industry.
The victims of communism is literally ideologically driven propaganda. Get a better source and we might have a conversation here.
The source I sent you about quality of life came from a capitalist economist, who did a scholarly assessment of both situations.
The link you gave me is a blog. Not really very scientific.