Would Communism Be Better Than Capitalism?

[Ajidica]

30+ million people would disagree had they not been murdered.

Citation needed.

The deaths most people point to are the ones during Stalin's forced collectivizations. What happened with those were a combination of terrible political handling and combined with one of the worst famines in the USSR right after a long and devestating war.

 

[Patroklos]

I have no desire to materially equal to anyone as a matter of default.

 

[Algeroth]

It's a little different. The communist revolution tossed out the Tsar, which was definitely a step forward, and the industrialization that followed was not taking place in any capacity during the rule of the Tsars.

Had Russia not revolved in that fashion, they might well have been defeated outright by the Nazis in World War II.

No, the February revolution , not the October one, tossed out the Tsar, wich was definetly a step forward, i agree, but the industrial growth under Tsar's regime wasn't unsignificant at all.

And Nazi regime own much to its strength of the special friendship that it have with Soviet Union.

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

Never said they were any better from a utilitarian perspective, though IMO utilitarianism can be screwed. But I do have personal interests to be more supportive of Capitalism than Communism.

Well, I perceive the utilitarianism literally as a system when everything around you is regarded utility and judged only by how it is good for utilizing. So, I consider utilitarianism anthropocentric (culturecentric, and any other applicable -centric) and evil, and perceive communism as much less utilitarian form of thought initially and capable of transforming selfish values of a society.

The Soviet Union, Maoist China and todays Cuba aren't any different from Fascist Italy or Nazi-Germany except in rethoric.

That's the same biased view of the Soviet Union as we had of "Rotten West" in the Soviet times. However, Soviet people as separate individuals and subsequently a society have overcome that, while Westerners have been developing it more and more as time comes, even without USSR to fight with, and as many people see this here it's because of fear together with envy to any opposition to the West, be it Russia, USSR or any other integration force in this region.

 

[Murky]

I have no desire to materially equal to anyone as a matter of default.

Are you against any form of social equality? Do you think people should have the same upward-mobility opportunities as everyone else?

 

[kochman]

Citation needed.

The deaths most people point to are the ones during Stalin's forced collectivizations. What happened with those were a combination of terrible political handling and combined with one of the worst famines in the USSR right after a long and devestating war.

Yes, the famine of the Ukraine... the bread basket of the USSR... interestingly, the Ukraine was the largest threat to the union's unity.

I'm really not going to spend time arguing about this, it is well accepted that Stalin was a mass murdering maniac...
Lenin was no angel either.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

The communist revolution tossed out the Tsar,

That happened in February, eight months before the communists took power.

which was definitely a step forward, and the industrialization that followed was not taking place in any capacity during the rule of the Tsars.

Also not true. Russia easily outproduced Germany during The War in war materiel, but none of it made it to the front lines and it was of rather poor quality. The Five Year Plans blew anything the Tsar did, but Russia was industrializing before the War.

Had Russia not revolved in that fashion, they might well have been defeated outright by the Nazis in World War II.

This is a fair point.

It's a decent metric, I will admit that. East Germany, for example, was horrendous.

But this is not.

Sorry, but I still disagree. Russia could've had an industrial revolution without communism.

How would that happen? Russia was set to be laid bare after the war by the West. Russia was very far behind Britain, France, Belgium, Germany, and the United States socially and economically. They were already more or less treating Russia like a colony, using it as a dumping ground for their commodities and as a raw materials source. The only way for Russia to not turn out like another Latin American banana republic would be if it barred Western capitalist enterprises entirely. But even then, how could it be expected for those capitalists not to go "Sevres" on Russia and divide it amongst themselves by force anyway? Russia would be in no place to stop them.

So no, Russia could not be expected to industrialize in a meaningful way and become like the Western European empires. The only productive path forward for them was socialism.

I can't imagine any historian today looking favorably at Stalin's gulags or purges of opposition members.

I don't believe anyone has suggested otherwise.

If not for the USA supplying Russia during a critical time on the eastern front they probably wouldn't have done as well against Germany and history would be drastically different. Remember that Russia was ruled by a Tsar during the invasion of Napoleon's army, which was defeated. Course, the Russian winter played a big role in that but you can't say that a communist dictator would have made much difference.

His point was about the industrial capacity of the Soviet Union, which was only as large as it was because the USSR had been heavily industrializing and militarizing for 15 years in expectation of another Foreign Intervention to finish the job they failed to do during the Civil War.

Yes, the famine of the Ukraine... the bread basket of the USSR... interestingly, the Ukraine was the largest threat to the union's unity.

You don't seem to grasp just what happens when a devastating world war, then a devastating civil war, completely devastate a countryside. The losses during them were catatstrophic, close to half were slaughtered. When the first forced collectivization campaign began, all recovery from that was destroyed. Peasants slaughtered their cattle wholesale rather than have them collectivized. Cattle levels did not return to pre-World War I levels until the 1960s.

On top of that incredible loss was a series of very bad droughts during the 1920s, the bad harvests from which were used to justify the forced collectivization campaign. This is a part of the world where bad harvests aren't exactly uncommon. The very real famine in Ukraine was not nearly as bad as the famine occurring in other parts of the Soviet Union at the same time due to the same weather problems. It just gets more attention because a silly British historian wrote a rather ridiculous book with a sexy title that fantasized events in the USSR, as its author was generally wont to do.

 

[Ajidica]

Yes, the famine of the Ukraine... the bread basket of the USSR... interestingly, the largest threat to the union's unity.

The Ukraine was still using what was essentialy medieval farming techniques after it had been devestated by both the civil war and WWI. Plus, it was well on time for a famine which happened roughly every 10 years.
Am I denying that the terrible policies pushed by Stalin and carried out by the nomenklatura contributed to the loss of life? No. Blaming Stalin for a famine in an area stuck in the middle ages would be like blaming Reagan for the elimination of coal layers in Appalachia contributed to much of the area's unemployment.

I'm really not going to spend time arguing about this, it is well accepted that Stalin was a mass murdering maniac...

I think Kissinger would disagree with you quite heavily here. In his view, Stalin was no maniac. Rather he was paranoid and living in an ethical netherworld. Kissinger would know what that would look like, Nixon was similar. The way Stalin handled the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, Yalta, Berlin, the status of Eastern Europe, Korea, and the 'Peace Note' were not the actions of a maniac.

Lenin was no angel either.

Better then the Black Baron. Only reason he is criticized was he was defeated by the Reds and never gained much power. The Whites were just as distasteful as the Reds.

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

Yes, the famine of the Ukraine... the bread basket of the USSR... interestingly, the Ukraine was the largest threat to the union's unity.

What a basket of bull****! Ukraine was probably the major source of pro-Sovietism, Soviet politicians and public figures!

And this famine would happen anyway as through the global climatic and economic changes famine and depression happened the same years all over the world, including Lord's blessed land of USA.

 

[Ajidica]

Ukraine was probably the major source of pro-Sovietism, Soviet politicians and public figures!

Can you explain and give examples? The I was talking with the Faculty Advisor for my university's Model UN team (she specializes in Soviet and post-Soviet Eastern Europe) and she was commenting on how the Ukraine, while outwardly appearing pro-Soviet, completely hated the RSFSR.

 

[timtofly]

Actually, I started reading history with the assumption that people in different places and different times would have different values and motivations, but it is not really true, not the core values and motivations at least.

You are correct.

Yes. Communism asks for an attitude and self-discipline, while capitalism is concerned with indulgences. The former made people better and stronger, as well as societies.

Not so. Greed has ruined both forms on a societal level, not to mention, economic, political, and environmental.

Why are people talking about Cuba, the USSR, and the PRC as if they are remotely communist? I thought they were all socialist dictatorships.

Are you implying that communism is the bait to achieve such ends?

It is not either form that is bad, it is how they are used.

Both capitalism and communism are great forms, as long as those who use them do so properly. Humans do not want to take the blame in anything and thus they associate ideological forms to be the scape goat.

Communism will not work if all parties are not willing to co-operate. Capitalism will not work if people are greedy. Not trying to derail the thread, but both are great ideologies and both can propel a society to greatness. They both envolve work, as long as no one feels taken advantage of.

Distribution of goods is hogwash, and a non-sensical excuse. The only reason why it is used, is based on the size of the group involved and humans wanting to control more than they can handle. If you think one form of government will work for every single individual on the planet, then that is utopia. No one wants to break things down into smaller groups, because then they would have to agree that as a whole, humanity is unable to come together in total agreement.

That may sound simplistic, since humans want everything to sound complicated and "just out of reach". If we reach our goal, what we do next?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Can you explain and give examples?

Well for one, there were more Soviet premiers from Ukraine than any other SSR. Also, Ukraine was given the worst treatment by the White and Black armies, and by Poland.

 

[Patroklos]

Are you against any form of social equality? Do you think people should have the same upward-mobility opportunities as everyone else?

I was talking about material equality. I have no problem with things such as equal protection under the law and the like.

The simple fact is I want to be able to profit from the fruits of my labor, or to suffer the consequences of my failures. That is freedom. Communism is designed to not allow either of those things.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I was talking about material equality. I have no problem with things such as equal protection under the law and the like.

The simple fact is I want to be able to profit from the fruits of my labor, or to suffer the consequences of my failures. That is freedom. Communism is designed to not allow either of those things.

You don't read our thread very often, do you?

 

[Crezth]

Sorry, but I still disagree. Russia could've had an industrial revolution without communism. I can't imagine any historian today looking favorably at Stalin's gulags or purges of opposition members. If not for the USA supplying Russia during a critical time on the eastern front they probably wouldn't have done as well against Germany and history would be drastically different. Remember that Russia was ruled by a Tsar during the invasion by Napoleon's army, which was defeated. Course, the Russian winter played a big role in that but you can't say that a communist dictator would have made much difference.

Of course, and the Russian winter played a large part in the defeat of the Nazis as well: however, without the techbase provided by the revolution, they would not have had the ability to push back the German armies. They would have had the men, sure, but they wouldn't have the guns, the tanks, and maybe not even the wherewithal.

But the Tsar during the time of the Napoleonic Wars was different than Nick II. For starters, the former was competent and the latter was not. Tsarist Russia was going nowhere fast. Now, if you want to argue that Russia didn't need the communists in order to industrialize or cast off the yoke of the Tsar, that's a different ball-game. I'm arguing that the "communist" regime was better for Russia than the Tsarist regime could have been.

30+ million people would disagree had they not been murdered.

That's a really good point, and there's no way I can really qualify it. Russians tend to look fondly upon the USSR in memory, however; likely as much to do with the history of their people as anything.

No, the February revolution , not the October one, tossed out the Tsar, wich was definetly a step forward, i agree, but the industrial growth under Tsar's regime wasn't unsignificant at all.

That's true. I keep forgetting the distinction. Eheh.

Also not true. Russia easily outproduced Germany during The War in war materiel, but none of it made it to the front lines and it was of rather poor quality. The Five Year Plans blew anything the Tsar did, but Russia was industrializing before the War.

Which War? The first or second? I assume you mean the first from context, which is surprising to me as I had always assumed that the industrial capacity of Russia before the revolution was very low in general.

Maybe you can set me straight, however, as I admit my knowledge of the history of the Soviet Union has not been reinforced since I learned about it in high school.

But this is not.

Would you care to explain why, in your opinion, the quality of a society cannot be judged in that way?

Oh! And while I have you on the line (so to speak), since I know you are quite knowledgeable in the field, would you like to comment on the relative merit that the USSR provided to the Russian people?

 

[Defiant47]

I was talking about material equality. I have no problem with things such as equal protection under the law and the like.

The simple fact is I want to be able to profit from the fruits of my labor, or to suffer the consequences of my failures. That is freedom. Communism is designed to not allow either of those things.

How would you like to "profit" from the fruits of your labour at arbitrarily determined rates that do not represent the true merit of your work?

 

[Lone Wolf]

The only way for Russia to not turn out like another Latin American banana republic would be if it barred Western capitalist enterprises entirely. But even then, how could it be expected for those capitalists not to go "Sevres" on Russia and divide it amongst themselves by force anyway? Russia would be in no place to stop them.
So no, Russia could not be expected to industrialize in a meaningful way and become like the Western European empires. The only productive path forward for them was socialism.

Well, there're examples of countries rapidly industrializing without being socialist in any way - see Japan. And, since you mentioned Sevres, Ataturk was no socialist, either. I can see a more competent Tsarist government doing something like that while organising a land reform to stuffle the question of landless and almost landless peasantry. Granted, you can say that a "competent Nicholas II" is an oxymoron, but we're talking general principles here, right?

militarizing for 15 years in expectation of another Foreign Intervention to finish the job they failed to do during the Civil War.

To be fair, the civil war intervention was kinda pathetic.

Am I denying that the terrible policies pushed by Stalin and carried out by the nomenklatura contributed to the loss of life? No. Blaming Stalin for a famine in an area stuck in the middle ages would be like blaming Reagan for the elimination of coal layers in Appalachia contributed to much of the area's unemployment.

I'd say it is more like blaming the British authorities in India for the Indian colonial famines. They definitely share a very large portion of guilt, though they were definitely no "maniacs", and didn't really seek a major genocide - it would be just pointless.

 

[kochman]

Of course, and the Russian winter played a large part in the defeat of the Nazis as well: however, without the techbase provided by the revolution, they would not have had the ability to push back the German armies. They would have had the men, sure, but they wouldn't have the guns, the tanks, and maybe not even the wherewithal.

Good point.
The patriotism of the CCCP during WW2 was pretty huge, and definitely a major factor in the wherewithal. They, after all, didn't call it WW2, but the Great Patriotic War. Massive propoganda, etc.
I mean, they were sending men forward, with no rifles, and telling them to pick up a fallen rifle. It takes a lot of guts to do that!

That's a really good point, and there's no way I can really qualify it. Russians tend to look fondly upon the USSR in memory, however; likely as much to do with the history of their people as anything.

True.

Separately,
We should also talk about the deaths of China, since it was brought into the argument as an example of a good communist society...

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

Can you explain and give examples? The I was talking with the Faculty Advisor for my university's Model UN team (she specializes in Soviet and post-Soviet Eastern Europe) and she was commenting on how the Ukraine, while outwardly appearing pro-Soviet, completely hated the RSFSR.

Ukraine as much as Russia (and then natural part of it) was very diverse ethnically and politically (both still are). In the Revolution/Soviet times lands which had had no true unity or homogeneity were artificially united under Ukraine region, thus, people of very different past and present started actively migrate here and there, from west to east, from rural land to big cities. So people from places and communities which historically revealed anti-Russian, anti-Communist or just separatist moods spread over the region, and Ukraine became associated with those moods from the perspective of some people.

One common Ukrainian identity is what Soviet authority had been built here as part of the internationalist politics.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Well, there're examples of countries rapidly industrializing without being socialist in any way - see Japan. And, since you mentioned Sevres, Ataturk was no socialist, either. I can see a more competent Tsarist government doing something like that while organising a land reform to stuffle the question of landless and almost landless peasantry. Granted, you can say that a "competent Nicholas II" is an oxymoron, but we're talking general principles here, right?

And Turkey is still behind Europe isn't it? And Turkey doesn't even have that much that Europe wants. Russia does.

To be fair, the civil war intervention was kinda pathetic.

Well everything east of Irkutsk was in Japanese hands, for one. But the big contribution of the foreign powers was material, not boots.

I mean, they were sending men forward, with no rifles, and telling them to pick up a fallen rifle.

Just because it happened in once scene in one Hollywood movie doesn't make it true. Yes, it happened in an un-resupplied part of Stalingrad during the battle.