new capitalism vs communism thread

[Az]

Originally posted by skywalker


Ok then, I want Spiffor to answer because you have already seen some of the light

[Ned]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Cuba, compared to any other Caribbean country except perhaps Barbados, has the highest standard of living. The USSr had a very hugh standard of living in comparison with Tsarist Russia (which is what we can compare it to, IMHO).
Many people in capitalist countries such as Haiti, Ivory Coast or Bangadesh would call these "prosperous". There are poor capitalist countries you know. Actually, plenty of them.


Continue to live in your happy little world, where the citizens of the Soviet Union or East Germany were barely survivng. Continue to live in your happy little world where Cubans don't get health benefits. Continue to live in your happy little world, where capitalism has brought such immense benefits to the people of Africa, of southern Asia, that are infinitely more prosperous than their East-European counterparts... Yes, please continue.

But please don't call your happy little world the "truth".

My God, Spiffor, when you have to compare Cuba to the poorest of the the poor to show that they are prosperous you are really digging your own grave. What is true is that the per capita GNP of Cuba is less than 1/10 of what it was in 1959.

If we want to get into defining what the word "prosperous" means, perhaps we can reach some common ground. Your usage of the word is dramatically different from my usage of the word. You seem to think that providing subsistence living is prosperous so long as a person has access to health care however wretched. You think that Europeans living in small cramped apartments for which they have to wait years to get permission to rent, and standing in long lines every day to get food is prosperous so long as they have access to health care for free.

Spiffor, for a socialist, poverty is prosperity so long as you have access to free Healthcare.

Communism, and socialism, are both lies.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by Ned
What is true is that the per capita GNP of Cuba is less than 1/10 of what it was in 1959.

I sincerely doubt that. However, that does not matter, since GNP is a Capitalist invention. For instance, in the US two thirds of GNP is pure consumption, while only one third is production. I would take it that a large part of Cuban GNP at that time was pure consumption and pleasure, Casinoes for instance. Thus GNP says nothing of long term sustainability. You need to Look at the HDI instead. The Human Development Index.

[Ned]

Tripledoc, you support my point that when we use words like "prosperous," we use them differently depending on one's political orientation.

Thus, when I contend that socialism leads to poor but equal and you contend that socialism leads to prosperous and equal, we are both right when we understand how we use the terms "poor" and "prosperous."

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by Ned
Tripledoc, you support my point that when we use words like "prosperous," we use them differently depending on one's political orientation.

I agree that there is a fundamental difference in philosophy, yes.

Clearly it is a problem for the Communist to explain how Capitalism, or the mixed economy really, is capable of making two thirds of its population share in prosperity on relatively equal terms, while one third is left in the dark.

Equally it is difficult for the Capitalist to explain why it does take a 'mixed economy' to ensure that two thirds get acces to prosperity - one would assume that the Capitalist would consider it feasible that with pure capitalism all will have equal share of prosperity, no?

[joncha]

Originally posted by Azazel
Ideally, there is no military, since the government encompasses the entire world.

This is true, but it's also the easy answer.

Before there is communism globally, a military would be necessary, if only to defend it from the likes of Ned and his army of zombie trolls.

A communist military must be democratic. Those who are asked by society to fight and die for it must be willing, active participants. Officers are elected to lead on the battlefield. Military plans and strategies are drawn up by officers and voted on by the soldiers.

And before anyone jumps all over me to say how "unrealistic" this is, it's how the Red Army was actually run (and run successfully) under Trotsky.

jon.

[joncha]

Originally posted by Ned
Tripledoc, you support my point that when we use words like "prosperous," we use them differently depending on one's political orientation.

Thus, when I contend that socialism leads to poor but equal and you contend that socialism leads to prosperous and equal, we are both right when we understand how we use the terms "poor" and "prosperous."

I actually agree. What have you done with Ned?

Originally posted by Ned
Communism, and socialism, are both lies.

I even agree (to an extent) with this. It was a lie, all those "communist" countries and "socialist paradises" weren't communist or socialist at all.

jon.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Tripledoc

I sincerely doubt that. However, that does not matter, since GNP is a Capitalist invention. For instance, in the US two thirds of GNP is pure consumption, while only one third is production. I would take it that a large part of Cuban GNP at that time was pure consumption and pleasure, Casinoes for instance. Thus GNP says nothing of long term sustainability. You need to Look at the HDI instead. The Human Development Index.

Unfortunately, there are no comparisons as the UN didn't bother doing a HDI on Cuba until 1996.

http://www.undp.org/hdr2003/indicator/indic_10_1_1.html

However, in 2001 Cuba ranked 52nd with an HDI score of 0.806, behind Costa Rica (42, .832), Poland (35, .841), and, of course, the capitalist and semi-capitalist countries of the West.

Here's the HDI on Cuba itself: http://www.undp.org/hdr2003/indicator/cty_f_CUB.html

And the US: http://www.undp.org/hdr2003/indicato...cty_f_USA.html

Note that there are no poverty statistics for Cuba, making a Cuba/US comparison irrelevant.

[Ned]

Under the Christian view, differences in wealth are not "evil" so long as the poor have enough to live on. Thus, I, and may other Republicans, actually support social welfare programs to the extent that they do not unduly impair the economy. We believe also, that a rising tide raises all boats. Clearly, the larger the economy (per capita) the greater the ability to afford social welfare programs.

Under the Socialist view, differences in wealth are inherently evil. Socialists enforce equality regardless of the costs to economic performance. Thus to total economic performace of socialist economies is less than capitalist economies. This necessarily leads to a per capita income substantially less than capitalist countries (as in Cuba or Russia), but at least there are no evil rich people around.

[Sandman]

Cuba suffers under an economic embargo, so that has to be taken into acount as well. If America lifted the embargo and opened a dialogue with Cuba, they'd be capitalist within a decade.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by joncha
And before anyone jumps all over me to say how "unrealistic" this is, it's how the Red Army was actually run (and run successfully) under Trotsky.

Do you know of any books or links which explain how Trotsky led his men?

[Pax]

The question is whether Cuba was better off in 1959 or now. or if Cuba would be better off now had there not been a change of power.

We know that enough Cubans were unhappy with the system of Cuba being a de facto colony of the U.S. that they revolted.

I think everyone will agree that Cuba is more stable now than in 1959.

Everyone also agrees that Castro government is responsible for many human rights violation and etc. but is it worst than the government that came before it. I think that it is better than the Batista regime. Castro himself was a political prisoner at one point.

For all the years before 1959, Capitalism and Democracy U.S. style had been bad for Cuba. I think that the policies of the U.S. towards Cuba can be faulted just as much as the Cuban government for any ills in the Cuban society. The U.S. has basically engaged in economic warfare with Cuba. In the 1800's we demanded that Japan trade with us because trade is crucial to a nations survival. In the 40's, Japan attacked us because we had refused to trade with them.
Had the Cubans not been exploited so heavily prior to 1959 would be more prosperous.

I think a system that pulls more people above the poverty line is more important than a system that increases the wealth of a few so much that the average wealth goes up but the actual amount of poor people does not. Which system meets that goal?

Is there anywhere we can see comparisons of past and present HDI?

[Ned]

We all know why Communists need large armies, even if they have no enemies.

[Pax]

Ned,
Would you agree that Capitalism is responsible for the Colonization of America, Africa, Australia, European rule of most of the world, All the major wars of the 1-21st century.
These things I consider more evil than communism or socialism.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by Ned
Socialists enforce equality regardless of the costs to economic performance.

Equally Capitalistism enforces 'freedom' at the cost of economic performance.

See the earlier post on Bush's Tax Plans for 2005, which IMHO is not economically efficient.

I think that even the most ardent capitalist will not deny that both China and Russia made enormous strides in economic perfomance, and they had to contend with regular invasions and civil unrest at the same time.

This was mainly due to the fact that the consumption was kept at a minimum, while investment in capital was prioritized. This was done at a horrible price, but it did prevent both nations from being destroyed by the Imperialist powers.