Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What you did not take into account, is that the USSR and other eastern countries were economically very poor. Heavily devastated by two world wars, and no rich uncle to bail them out in exchange for adopting a capitalist economy. The available GNP of Russia (after deducting the huge cost of defending themselves from the constant drumming of American nuclear threats against them, which they could ill afford), the quality of life was a great deal better for Russians than for people in capitalist countries that enjoyed a similar level of wealth and developed infrastructure at the time. What can you say about the housing circumstances and level of education and medical services in, say, Mexico, or Egypt, or Thailand in the 1960s? What Russian would have preferred to live, with median income, in Iran or Brazil, with their so-called "capitalist freedom"?
Decades of the wasteful economic cold war and enforced isolation had by then reduced the USSR to even poorer status, making my points even more salient.
If you have $100 and your opponent has $20, you only need to spend one fifth of your wealth to fight him to a draw and reduce his assets to zero. That is exactly what the Cold War was, and that's where the Soviet wealth went, instead of going into a better life for Soviet citizens. America, in the Cold War, did not destroy a governmental institution. It destroyed the lives of 100-million Russian people. Just as we have destroyed the lives of the Cuban people by refusing to admit them to the community of nations for an entire lifetime. A Cuban does not have Castro to blame for his poverty, but Jesse Helms and John F. Kennedy, who could have granted Cuba the freedom to engage in global commerce, and see their socio-economic experiment play out and succeed or fail on its own merits.
Decades of the wasteful economic cold war and enforced isolation had by then reduced the USSR to even poorer status, making my points even more salient.
If you have $100 and your opponent has $20, you only need to spend one fifth of your wealth to fight him to a draw and reduce his assets to zero. That is exactly what the Cold War was, and that's where the Soviet wealth went, instead of going into a better life for Soviet citizens. America, in the Cold War, did not destroy a governmental institution. It destroyed the lives of 100-million Russian people. Just as we have destroyed the lives of the Cuban people by refusing to admit them to the community of nations for an entire lifetime. A Cuban does not have Castro to blame for his poverty, but Jesse Helms and John F. Kennedy, who could have granted Cuba the freedom to engage in global commerce, and see their socio-economic experiment play out and succeed or fail on its own merits.
How come it didn't happen the other way around? I mean, let's agree that the Soviet Union didn't economically crush the United States out of the kindness of its own heart. I remember well my grade school lessons and TV propaganda, and how incredibly vicious it was. Based on everything I was taught there, I know that it's not like the Soviet Union just wanted to co-exist with others and let their economic and political systems succeed or fail on their own merits; the only way it would peacefully co-exist with everyone is if everyone adopted communism. So how come the US grew wealthier and the Soviet Union grew poorer?
So how come the US grew wealthier and the Soviet Union grew poorer?
Because the US started out ahead.
I'm going to guess, with the greatest of confidence, that you are a pretty decent chess player. So, what do you endeavor to do when you have a one-piece advantage? You exchange pieces, one for one, until you shift your advantage from 7-6 to 2-1. You are then unbeatable.
The Americans started out with the extra pieces. The cold war was a one-for-one exchange of pieces, until the ratio reached an unbeatable US advantage.
Do socialist/communist systems inevitably lead to mediocrity and if so, is it moral for people to follow and/or support systems that pander to such low common-denominators?
That issue has much more to do with the state of nature that the ism.
With the 'isms' you must ask; What does the 'ism' do with its resources? How does it know what to do? Capital-ism provides timely and usually fast feedback.
In Russia, at least, those are not simple yes-and-no questions. Look beneath the surface at what people's lifestyle was actually like.
Was housing free?Yes, if you ignore the fact that you pay for it by having the state pay you a most miserly salary. In any event, the housing was of atrocious quality, unsafe, and extremely crowded. Most distressingly, you couldn't opt out of free housing -- even if you had money, you still had to take what the government gave you, or bribe the hell out of public officials. When I was growing up, our family of four occupied an apartment of approximately 550 square feet. And that, by far, was not the worst possible situation. Ever heard of of kommunalkas? Those were apartments shared by multiple families. There would be a full family to every bedroom, and the kitchen and the bathroom were communally shared by all. Imagine you have 15 people sharing a 4-bedroom apartment with one bathroom; now think about what getting ready for work or school in the morning would be like in a place like that. Whole families -- couples with children -- huddled in tiny rooms for decades, with no comfort and no privacy. Living with one's inlaws was a given (both in kommunalkas and elsewhere), and this had an absolutely awful effect on the quality of marriage and family life in the Soviet Union. I know that Colgate site has a nostalgic air about it, but living in one of those places was a nightmare. And then there were worse situations. People lived in barracks, in sheds, in tiny run-down houses that look pretty much like Third World slums. Even apartments such as the one my family had were of awful quality. It was freezing in the winter, sweltering in the summer, no sound proofing of any kind, the water ran brown and had visible acquatic life in it, and if you were foolish enough to hammer a nail into a wall (to hang a picture, or something), a couple of kilos of crumbling concrete and sand would come down on you. Under the Soviet law, a family was not entitled to a new apartment unless they had less than 5 square meters per person in their current residence (including the kitchen and the bathroom). Even if they were entitled, the waiting list stretched on to interminable lengths; in the Moscow area, waiting times of 18-20 years were standard.
Were the schools free?Officially, yes. In reality, if you wanted to get into a school of your choice, you probably would have to bribe a few people.
Was the medical care available to everyone for free?It was free, but it wasn't usually available -- and even if it was available, it was inadequate. Real Soviet hospitals were a horrible sight -- 30-50 people to a room, the sick laying on stretchers for weeks and months in unheated hallways, their sheets frozen from their urine. As far as medicines, nothing was available without bribes. You had to pay for everything, dearly -- just under the table.
Were there free day cares?Yes -- but it was impossible to get into one. Unless you knew people, and bribed them.
Did anyone have to worry about losing job/housing?Most certainly, people worried. My mother, an engineer, was first dispatched to an ink-making industrial plant, where she was promptly poisoned and nearly died. (The Soviet industry didn't bother with worker safety. After all, what could injured workers do? Sue?) So afterwards, my family scraped together some money, bribed a few officials, and my mom got a teaching job. So as with everything else, you were guaranteed some kind of employment, but the difference between jobs could mean the difference between life and death. And again, unless you knew people and could grease their palms, you had no choice in your job. And certainly, people worried about housing. If you, your wife, your 2 children, and your mother in law all live in one room which is your bedroom, playroom, living room, sick room and study -- and you share the bathroom and the kitchen with a dozen other people, not related to you -- I guarantee you, you'll worry about housing daily. Because what you have in that scenario is "housing" only in the most academic sense.
Were there any homeless?Yes, actually there were. Although the State did whatever it could to put them in jail or in psychiatric institutions.
Did ordinary people go (or could go) places for their vacation?Like, what places, exactly? If you worked at a good enough plant, they could may be send you to a country retreat, which would be an equivalent of a Western youth hostel, somewhere in the woods. You could go camping nearby. But most people couldn't leave the country, even within the Eastern Block, and any vacation with a semblance of luxury or adventure in it -- like going to the Black Sea coast -- would only be possible for people with important connections.
Well, you can describe any expression that way. Take the most liberal blog owned by an individual (or the most conservative, whichever way your tastes run), and you can say it's a means of public manipulation, because that's what argument is, isn't it? The meaning of free press is the existence, without encumbrance, of different viewpoints expressed in the media, and the accessibility of important factual information by the public. In a country where a totalitarian government has a lock down on all information and owns and operates all of the mass media, there is no room for healthy skepticism, inquiry, or debate. This in no way compares to the Western world.
Thanks for your input on the past situation in Russia. It appears, there were some differencies between individual socialist countries.
I'll add my experience from CS (Czechoslovakia):
Housing: People were not forced into public housing, actually, some built homes (and I don't mean the priviledged ones). Housing quality was in overall at a decent level.
Kommunalkas did not exist in CS. Sorry to learn that this was in USSR.
The water where I lived was excellent (mountain area).
Yes, there was a waiting list for assigning a newer appartment, which could take a several years.
Schools: The downside was, if too many applicants, then kids of parents in CP (communist party) were given preference.
Medical Care: I remember 8 people in one large hospital room also in CS, but I thought it was fun. We played cards, sometimes even with the doctor, or otherwise kept the spirit in a good shape.
Unfortunately, people were prone to give doctors money if more serious procedure was due. Those who didn't (couldn't afford it) received the services anyway.
Day Care: I do not recall a problem with placement of kids in CS.
Job/Housing: Sorry to see the problems you described, things were going pretty well in CS.
Homeless: I recall just one person in CS, who appeared to be without living place (at least temporarily), and I forgot how he got to that situation.
Going places for vacation: This was really good in CS! Many places to choose from within CS or in any socialist country. The stay was decent.
Permission for visiting nonsocialist country was needed, and mostly they were not issued. This was not good, but how harmful was it to one's life?
The press: I agree, that the censorship existed. Remember, the system (socialism) was new, and governements took lot of precausions to preserve it. That's why the socialist countries took many steps, that looked totalitarian, but the gov openly admited it, reasoning, that for sometime the steps were inevitable for preserving the new social system.
I agree, that people didn't make much money, but much money was not needed. So many things that were given to people... Folks actually didn't need to save much. Like, for what...?
I didn't mention that earlier, but to avoid second guess - everyone had a state retirement at age of 60, some women (mothers) as early as at 53, depending on number of children they raised. Oh, and families were given monthly payments for each child, just to support the population grow.
I'm not socialism advocate, but I think, that for being a new social system, in overall it worked very well, and all those downsides/unpleasant things were certainly correctable. That's what I think now. The time I left CS, I was young, and viewed things differently.
Again jtur88 has made a good point re: the human condition.
Are people inherently violent and corrupt? If so are people likely to tend toward extremes w/i the frame work of ANY governing political system? Is the political system "neutral" or irrelevant? Is it really PEOPLE who are problematic and NOT the political system of any particular time or place?
I would ask the following question.
Are some types of government, and the philosophical foundations for those government MORE prone to abuse by people who are potentially weak-minded and violent? Do some systems of government base themselves on philosophies that cater to the WORST aspects in humanity things like greed, vengeance, hatred, dishonesty, laziness and again...violence?
Are other systems LESS likely to cater to the WORST aspects of humanity? Can some governments lend themselves to supporting peoples inclinations toward honesty, thrift, compassion, friendliness, industriousness and peace?
Can it really be the case that ALL governments and philosophies are totally neutral and have NO EFFECT Whatsoever on peoples behavior? Is is really the case that people are to blame for ruining what could/should be GOOD governments?
No rational person will ever say that the Fascist Regime in Nazi Germany or the Fascist Regime in Imperialist Japan were "moral" or even legitimate governments.
Given the even more murderous history of Communism and all the associated philosophies and tennants (Marxism, Maoism etc) can any person or persons rationally claim to live by moral guidelines if they support such philosophies and governments that rule by such "philosophies"?
"The Maoist government in China modernized the country, but also murdered 40 to 70 million of it's own citizens" Is a country truly advanced if it has to commit mass murder in order to "improve" and "modernize"?
If mass murder is the cost of modernization, is such modernization moral? Is such modernization even productive?
First of all,
give the exact definition of communism, fascism, capitalism, marxism and maoism.
And then we can have a discussion about whether or not they are moral
instead of talking about what people think those words mean.
I can make an argument that capitalism is inmoral,
because capitalism promotes child labor
Very good point. In Marx' Communist Manifesto, one of the main points was the abolition of child labor. Sure enough, the USA enacted legislation to bring into effect exactly that Marxist ideal---90 years later.
I'm going to guess, with the greatest of confidence, that you are a pretty decent chess player. So, what do you endeavor to do when you have a one-piece advantage? You exchange pieces, one for one, until you shift your advantage from 7-6 to 2-1. You are then unbeatable.
The Americans started out with the extra pieces. The cold war was a one-for-one exchange of pieces, until the ratio reached an unbeatable US advantage.
You still think it is a zero sum game? They could have created as mush as we did, we took nothing from them
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
