Communism ruined East Germany and it still hasn't been fixed - says Spiegel

[amadeus]

What would you be saying if you thought they were "communist"?

I blamed the Greek government first, didn't I? In a socialist system they would have even more of the blame.

You can certainly say it. But it hardly makes it true.

The point is that we have only seen a few examples of so-called socialist governments, and all of them have suffered from the very same problem. They were hopelessly authoritarian which has nothing at all to do with socialism or communism.

So a central planner in a democratic country is going to have better knowledge about how many chairs to make, or how much wood is needed to manufacture enough pencils for schools? Plenty of counties grew under their authoritarian governments, but none of them were socialist.

Exploiting others has always been a quite easy way for a handful of individuals to get rich at the expense of the multitudes. They should be so proud of their heritage of exploitation due to sheer greed. In that sense, they had the very same roots as Russia did.

Given the results, I'd rather be exploited by the American business elite than the Leninist-Marxist-Maoist elite.

 

[Takhisis]

Erm, this thread is about East Germany, not the Greek crisis.

(can we attribute Greek's culture of corruption to its having had a CIA officer as de facto president?)

 

[Hygro]

What happened in Eastern Europe was that Communism collapsed, Capitalism was built from its ruins. Built, not emerged. Capitalism doesn't spontaneously organise itself, markets do - and there is a subtle difference.

Yes very true, and in the case of Eastern Europe there was a mad dash to do so by existing capitalist agents.

Probably good investment opportunities in the future if you learn Korean.

 

[Azale]

No, I'm pretty sure it is; central planning blows chunks and the whole system collapsed because they couldn't figure out how to make it so people didn't have to wait in line for 3 hours to get a roll of toilet paper.

In the 25 years since the collapse of communism, people have been pointing to the Eastern European countries and saying it proves that capitalism failed. Well, what about the 40 years (70 for the Russians) before that? The Poles, Czechs, etc. all got screwed and then when the system collapsed, capitalism should take the blame? No siree.

Capitalist systems are basically built on collapsing and impoverishing large numbers of people every generation or so. Both systems have failed. Either you can't create socialism and we need to wait for the technology fairy to fix our economies/society, or you can create socialism and that's the way out.

That's how I've seen it for the last few years anyway. Not to take away from the ephemeral successes of the American, Soviet, East Asian, etc systems. It's just not enough yet.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I blamed the Greek government first, didn't I? In a socialist system they would have even more of the blame.

At least you are now using the word "socialist" instead of "communist". I guess that is an improvement.

So a central planner in a democratic country is going to have better knowledge about how many chairs to make, or how much wood is needed to manufacture enough pencils for schools? Plenty of counties grew under their authoritarian governments, but none of them were socialist.

Socialism doesn't require a "central planner" any more than capitalism does. But things usually do work a bit more efficiently with proper planning.

In a capitalistic society, if a company decides to make pencils with no demand the company goes under and they all lose their jobs.

In a socialist society, they merely decide to make something else that people actually need. The excess pencils are warehoused and eventually used. Nobody gets fired.

How terrible.

Given the results, I'd rather be exploited by the American business elite than the Leninist-Marxist-Maoist elite.

Ironically you didn't mention the US as being far too authoritarian, even though it now is. But you did mention South Africa as a supposedly successful authoritarian regime. I'm sure you would be more than willing to be an oppressed majority who was forced to live in poverty by his overlords, instead of being treated like a human being by humanist socialists.

You are apparently deliberately comparing apples and oranges. We simply don't know how well a properly implemented non-authoritarian socialist or communist government might work because there clearly hasn't been one yet. But you certainly aren't going to get those still fighting the Cold War to admit it. They actually think good has finally triumphed over evil because of a giant propaganda campaign to create the military-industrial complex, which is actually based on government "welfare" and fearmongering.

True free enterprise and capitalism is virtually dead. Instead, modern corporations buy politicians so they can also get government handouts. They buy the media organizations to engage in massive propaganda campaigns themselves. And many of the people they exploit to do so don't even realize they aren't even making progress anymore, so the rich can become even richer to the detriment of everybody else.


Link to video.

 

[Ajidica]

Given the results, I'd rather be exploited by the American business elite than the Leninist-Marxist-Maoist elite.

The reason for that is over a century of regulations imposing what can and cannot be done to workers, substantial and sustained public welfare campaigns, and numerous programs to at least try and ensure a baseline level of health, education, and stability.

 

[amadeus]

At least you are now using the word "socialist" instead of "communist". I guess that is an improvement.

Because the failed Soviet experiment should also stain the word "socialism."

Socialism doesn't require a "central planner" any more than capitalism does. But things usually do work a bit more efficiently with proper planning.

Maybe it wouldn't, but so far, they mostly have. I don't know how "proper" planning was in the USSR, waiting in line for hours to get basic goods.

In a capitalistic society, if a company decides to make pencils with no demand the company goes under and they all lose their jobs.

In a socialist society, they merely decide to make something else that people actually need. The excess pencils are warehoused and eventually used. Nobody gets fired.

How terrible.

I suppose the capital fairy comes down from above and retools and retrains all of the workers at no cost. Also there's no such thing as opportunity cost under socialism.

Ironically you didn't mention the US as being far too authoritarian, even though it now is. But you did mention South Africa as a supposedly successful authoritarian regime.

No, I mentioned South Africa as a successful transition from authoritarianism.

You are apparently deliberately comparing apples and oranges. We simply don't know how well a properly implemented non-authoritarian socialist or communist government might work because there clearly hasn't been one yet.

Gee I wonder why!

 

[Ajidica]

Because the failed Soviet experiment should also stain the word "socialism."

Do the post-War reconstruction governments in France and Britain 'anti-stain' socialism?

Maybe it wouldn't, but so far, they mostly have. I don't know how "proper" planning was in the USSR, waiting in line for hours to get basic goods.

I suppose that is a trade-off. Would you rather stand in line for basic goods, or see basic goods priced out of your reach? Surely you must have read about how rising food prices have prompted riots and protests in part of South East Asia.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Do the post-War reconstruction governments in France and Britain 'anti-stain' socialism?

I suppose that is a trade-off. Would you rather stand in line for basic goods, or see basic goods priced out of your reach? Surely you must have read about how rising food prices have prompted riots and protests in part of South East Asia.

Iam pretty sure tens of millions died due to starvation when certain communist collective farming was tried ins part of South East Asia

 

[Ajidica]

I'm referring to modern food riots, as in the last few years.

 

[FriendlyFire]

I'm referring to modern food riots, as in the last few years.

You know we can google causes of world food prices crisis
Seems a long combination of factors. You could say that capitalism was one of the factors but I wouldnt say it was the main cause.

World population growth
Increased demand for more resource intensive food
Effects of petroleum and fertilizer price increases
Declining world food stockpiles
Financial speculation
Commodity index funds
Effects of trade liberalization
Effects of food for fuel
Biofuel subsidies in the US and the EU
Idled farmland
Agricultural subsidies
Distorted global rice market
Crop shortfalls from natural disasters
Soil and productivity losses
Rising levels of ozone
Unrest and government actions in individual countries and regions

2013 research concluded that the spike was the result of an unusual combination of circumstances and prices in the future will be higher than before the spike, depending on oil prices, climate change, and future diets.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007–08_world_food_price_crisis

 

[classical_hero]

I would say the fact we used food for fuel instead of eating made it much harder for the poor to eat, since food stocks should have been there, but they were taken away from them and as a result of a stupid policy, the poor were worse off. Food used as fuel is an insanse use of food.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Iam pretty sure tens of millions died due to starvation when certain communist collective farming was tried ins part of South East Asia

You can't really blame "communism" for a natural disaster in 1921, which the rest of the world ignored initially because those dying were "evil". Russia has been plagued by droughts and famines since the 17th Century.

Droughts and famines in Russia and the Soviet Union tended to occur on a fairly regular basis, with famine occurring every 10–13 years and droughts every 5–7 years. Golubev and Dronin distinguish three types of drought according to productive areas vulnerable to droughts: Central (the Volga basin, Northern Caucasus and the Central Chernozem Region), Southern (Volga and Volga-Vyatka area, the Ural region, and Ukraine), and Eastern (steppe and forest-steppe belts in Western and Eastern Siberia, and Kazakhstan).[1]

So who was more "evil". The victims or those who did nothing to help?

 

[FriendlyFire]

You can't really blame "communism" for a natural disaster in 1921, which the rest of the world ignored initially because those dying were "evil". Russia has been plagued by droughts and famines since the 17th Century.

So who was more "evil". The victims or those who did nothing to help?

Really the US sent massive amounts of wheat as Aid to Russia and only stopped because Stalin was taking the very same US wheat and reselling it for money ? Didnt we examine this in depth in the Ukraine thread ???
Then again there was a certain ruinous World War and Revolution and Civil War that had just occurred, so there is plenty of blame to go around

On the other hand Japan was also plagued by droughts and famines and they solved this because the government engaged in agricultural research into sweet potatoes crops. Imported from China, then changed to survive in Japans climate and then test planted and then spread everywhere ending famines in Japan.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Do the post-War reconstruction governments in France and Britain 'anti-stain' socialism?

What I have been wondering: wasn't there a pretty fantastic economic development in pretty much any place on earth in the post-War reconstruction perioid? At least that is about the picture I get by now. And it makes me wonder how much this was due to better governance and how much just due to conditions which were ripe for great economic development.

Also, I never quit knew what exactly was this new socialism you reference.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Really the US sent massive amounts of wheat as Aid to Russia and only stopped because Stalin was taking the very same US wheat and reselling it for money ? Didnt we examine this in depth in the Ukraine thread ???

I'd certainly trust what those still fighting the Cold War have to say about Soviet history.

That aid didn't even start until millions had already starved to death for political reasons. But eventually the US finally relented and decided to aid their "enemy".

Then again there was a certain ruinous World War and Revolution and Civil War that had just occurred, so there is plenty of blame to go around.

There certainly was. The US and the rest of the so-called free world have been trying to sabotage any socialist country since their inception, especially the Soviet Union. For some odd reason they seem worried that the notion of treating people like human beings by giving them some basic rights as workers, instead of being able to exploit them for personal profit with virtually no laws to protect them from abuse, might spread to their own "free" countries.

On the other hand Japan was also plagued by droughts and famines and they solved this because the government engaged in agricultural research into sweet potatoes crops. Imported from China, then changed to survive in Japans climate and then test planted and then spread everywhere ending famines in Japan.

I don't know if similar drought-resistant plants are an effective solution in Russia or not. But I would think they would have tried that by now if they were.

Russia is apparently still plagued with a drought that started in 2010.

Russia’s warming faster than the rest of the planet—and seeing disease, drought, and forest fires as a result

 

[FriendlyFire]

Pretty amazing
Looks like the Chinese were the first to research and cultivate sweet potatoes as a major food to stop famines and mass starvation's at the end of the 15th Century. High yields, very little labour, takes to most soils, tolerant to drought and heat. The yields are 1000% higher per hectare then wheat or rice crops, though no idea what it was in ancient times but the increased yields would have a major factor in ending famine.

4 centuries later in 2013 and Russia has started to plant and test sweet potatoes crops.

Due to a major crop failure, sweet potatoes were introduced to Fujian province of China in about 1594 from Luzon. The growing of sweet potatoes was encouraged by the Governor Chin Hsüeh-tseng (Jin Xuezeng).[17][18] Sweet potatoes were introduced as a food crop in Japan, and by 1735 was planted in Shogun Tokugawa Yoshimune's private garden.[19] It was also introduced to Korea in 1764

They grow well in many farming conditions and have few natural enemies. sown by vine cuttings rather than seeds, sweet potatoes are relatively easy to plant. Because the rapidly growing vines shade out weeds, little weeding is needed

Nationwide average annual yield was 33.3 tonnes per hectare.[28] Yields as high as 80 metric tonnes per hectare have been reported

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweet_potato