T1B

Dr_Phibes wrote:The Soviet economy ceased to be socialist in any sense of the word ......

Correct me please, but isn't one of the fundamental arguments against "socialism" the fact that it cannot sustain itself for any length of time as "social" ?

Thanks for the update RF, I've been reading.


Thanks PSUFAN

Tom In VA wrote:

Dr_Phibes wrote:The Soviet economy ceased to be socialist in any sense of the word ......

Correct me please, but isn't one of the fundamental arguments against "socialism" the fact that it cannot sustain itself for any length of time as "social" ?

That's incorrect. Technically, the union under Stalin was socialist for a good three decades. North Korea has been Socialist for sixty along with Cuba. It depends on the individual circimstance of the country involved.

If it can work for half a century, it can work for a thousand years. Remember, a vanguard government is a fragile thing and open to revisionism as Khrushchov proved. It's not a question of flawed economics - more of being resolute in the seige conditions a communist state finds itself in after a revolution.

Bushwa. Cuba wasn't self sustaining and if it wasn't for the outside funding from the USSR it would have collapsed long ago.

Stalin murdered 20 million people, and used the limited wealth of the under classes to finance his version of socialism. It would not have stood on its own unless he had achieved a higher level of industrialism at the expense of the peasants.

Korea relies on outside assistance still, and they've been dabbling in capitalism for a few years.

Dr_Phibes wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:

Dr_Phibes wrote:The Soviet economy ceased to be socialist in any sense of the word ......

Correct me please, but isn't one of the fundamental arguments against "socialism" the fact that it cannot sustain itself for any length of time as "social" ?

That's incorrect. Technically, the union under Stalin was socialist for a good three decades. North Korea has been Socialist for sixty along with Cuba. It depends on the individual circimstance of the country involved.

If it can work for half a century, it can work for a thousand years. Remember, a vanguard government is a fragile thing and open to revisionism as Khrushchov proved.

No I believe I'm correct. 100% Socialism being unable to sustain itself for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is HUMAN NATURE, is in fact a primary argument against it.

If you'd like to argue that because it lasted for a length of time, you'd be arguing with yourself. I know it has. But it hasn't sustained itself and just because something works for 50 years doesn't mean it will work for thousands.

But I'm interested in your thoughts RE:

It's not a question of flawed economics - more of being resolute in the seige conditions a communist state finds itself in after a revolution.

TIA

Mister Bushice wrote:Stalin murdered 20 million people, and used the limited wealth of the under classes to finance his version of socialism. It would not have stood on its own unless he had achieved a higher level of industrialism at the expense of the peasants.

You could say the exact same thing about the US. The difference was that we took advantage of a willing immigrant class to stoke the fires at the factories. Stalin did not have that luxury.

BSmack wrote:

Mister Bushice wrote:Stalin murdered 20 million people, and used the limited wealth of the under classes to finance his version of socialism. It would not have stood on its own unless he had achieved a higher level of industrialism at the expense of the peasants.

You could say the exact same thing about the US. The difference was that we took advantage of a willing immigrant class to stoke the fires at the factories. Stalin did not have that luxury.

Actually it's been the following:

A willing immigrant class A
An unwilling immigrant class
A "no other alternatives" immigrant class


Members of each, in time, being able to climb the ladder to the highest order of socio economic class in this country.

What other system provides the ability for people to jump from class to class based on their own initiative, innovativeness, effort, desire or lack thereof ?

mvscal wrote:

BSmack wrote:

Mister Bushice wrote:Stalin murdered 20 million people, and used the limited wealth of the under classes to finance his version of socialism. It would not have stood on its own unless he had achieved a higher level of industrialism at the expense of the peasants.

You could say the exact same thing about the US. The difference was that we took advantage of a willing immigrant class to stoke the fires at the factories. Stalin did not have that luxury.

Well, that and we didn't kill 20 million people...

20 million is a very conservative estimate, BTW.

I know it is, but if I had said 30 million I would have gotten the "What are you a dumbfuck" or some other choice phrase.

You could say the exact same thing about the US. The difference was that we took advantage of a willing immigrant class to stoke the fires at the factories. Stalin did not have that luxury.

But it's not the same. Those immigrants came willingly from a life of hardship to a land of opportunity and they knew they were making big sacrifices. For the most part they came from having very little. Stalins peasantry lost about 90% of their earnings due to him bleeding them dry to kickstart the industrialization, and on top of that there were the forced labor camps for "prisoners". There really isn't a whole lot of comparison between the two methods.

Mister Bushice wrote:But it's not the same. Those immigrants came willingly from a life of hardship to a land of opportunity and they knew they were making big sacrifices. For the most part they came from having very little. Stalins peasantry lost about 90% of their earnings due to him bleeding them dry to kickstart the industrialization, and on top of that there were the forced labor camps for "prisoners". There really isn't a whole lot of comparison between the two methods.

They came from little and they got little. It was their good fortune that muckrakers, wobblies and trade unionists stepped to the plate. The robber barons would have given them nothing. Just like Stalin.

mvscal wrote:So these robber barons just showed up in the US rich as all fuck?

The vast majority of robber barons had a huge leg up from birth on the peasants they exploited.

BSmack wrote:

Mister Bushice wrote:But it's not the same. Those immigrants came willingly from a life of hardship to a land of opportunity and they knew they were making big sacrifices. For the most part they came from having very little. Stalins peasantry lost about 90% of their earnings due to him bleeding them dry to kickstart the industrialization, and on top of that there were the forced labor camps for "prisoners". There really isn't a whole lot of comparison between the two methods.

They came from little and they got little. It was their good fortune that muckrakers, wobblies and trade unionists stepped to the plate. The robber barons would have given them nothing. Just like Stalin.

But Russian peasant lost a significant part of their income, and a significant number of them lost their lives because of Stalin. The immigrants who came here survived. They may have been taken advantage of too, but the comparisons end there.

Mister Bushice wrote:But Russian peasant lost a significant part of their income, and a significant number of them lost their lives because of Stalin. The immigrants who came here survived. They may have been taken advantage of too, but the comparisons end there.

You're delving into a foolish consistency. Let's try to remember that this argument is about whether or not socialism is sustainable. Your argument against this hinges on Stalin brutally exploiting the peasant classes. Or, as you said, "It would not have stood on its own unless he had achieved a higher level of industrialism at the expense of the peasants."

It is an open and shut case that the industrialization of the United States would have never happened either without the influx of millions of uneducated European peasants lured by the promise of riches and forced into inhuman levels of squalor and brutal factory jobs.

Oh, and a significant number of workers have lost their lives as a result of American industrialization. In 1913 alone there were 21,000 "documented worker deaths in the United States.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4822a1.htm

That Stalin also had other forced, internal and external to contend with does not make this comparison any less valid.

mvscal wrote:Actually the vast majority of them were "peasants" or the descendents of "peasants".

This is something you would understand if you actually had a clue of what the fuck you're talking about instead of spewing all of your wildly distorted commie handwringing bullshit.

Oh this is going to be fun.

Jay Gould- Gould, the son of John Burr Gould (1792-1866) and Mary Moore (c1800-1841), was born on a farm near Roxbury, New York. He studied at the Hobart Academy, but left at age 16, to work for his father in the hardware business.

John D. Rockefeller: born in Richford, New York, the second of the six children to William Avery Rockefeller (November 13, 1810 - May 11, 1906) and Eliza Davison (September 12, 1813 - March 28, 1889). William was a traveling salesmen of dubious products, such as "cancer cures," a philanderer and bigamist.

And even that paragon of Horatio Alger "rags to riches" Andrew Carnegie was not a peasant.

Andrew Carnegie was born in Dunfermline, Scotland, on November 25, 1835. The son of a weaver, he came with his family to the United States in 1848 and settled in Allegheny, Pennsylvania.

All the sons of businessmen or tradesmen, NOT PEASANTS.

And some more examples....

J.P. Morgan- Born in Hartford, Connecticut to Junius Spencer Morgan (1813–1890); and Juliet Pierpont (1816-1884) of Boston, Massachusetts. Junius was a partner of George Peabody and the founder of the house of J. S. Morgan & Co. in London. Morgan was educated at the English High School of Boston and at the University of Göttingen. He was a prominent member of the Protestant Episcopal Church.

Cornelius Vanderbilt- was the fourth of nine children born in Port Richmond on Staten Island in New York to a family of modest means. His great-great-great-grandfather, Jan Aertson, was a Dutch farmer from the village of De Bilt in Utrecht, the Netherlands, who immigrated to New York as an indentured servant in 1650.

Leland Stanford: He was born in Watervliet, New York, one of eight children of Josiah and Elizabeth Phillips Stanford. Stanford's ancestors settled in the Mohawk Valley of New York around 1720. He attended Clinton Liberal Institute, in Clinton, New York, and studied law at Cazenovia Seminary in Cazenovia, New York and later in Albany. He was admitted to the bar in 1848, and then moved to Port Washington, Wisconsin. He married Jane Elizabeth Lathrop in Albany on September 30, 1850.

Still nary a peasant amongst them.

Andrew Carnegie was indeed a peasant. His family left Scotland because they had run out of prospects utterly.

There's no way around it - Carnegie was basically a man who went from rags to riches. Portraying him as the son of privilege or even of comfort is simply not accurate.

BSmack wrote:

Mister Bushice wrote:But Russian peasant lost a significant part of their income, and a significant number of them lost their lives because of Stalin. The immigrants who came here survived. They may have been taken advantage of too, but the comparisons end there.

You're delving into a foolish consistency. Let's try to remember that this argument is about whether or not socialism is sustainable. Your argument against this hinges on Stalin brutally exploiting the peasant classes. Or, as you said, "It would not have stood on its own unless he had achieved a higher level of industrialism at the expense of the peasants."

It is an open and shut case that the industrialization of the United States would have never happened either without the influx of millions of uneducated European peasants lured by the promise of riches and forced into inhuman levels of squalor and brutal factory jobs.

I agree that the industrialization in the US would not have occurred without the labor force to achieve it.

As for Russian Socialism, It would not have lasted as long as it did without the methods Stalin imposed, meaning that socialism in and of it self has not, as phibes suggested, stood the test of time.

However I was referencing a seperate issue when you tried to compare the two situations as being the same. The US did not use the money of the immigrant class to finance industrialization, they used their willing labor, and there were no mass executions or murders by the leader of this country or by any industrial giant as a means of enforcing the rules and to prevent uprisings and rebellions. As a matter of fact, worker rights came to the forefront over that time, and workplace safety was improved.

Oh, and a significant number of workers have lost their lives as a result of American industrialization. In 1913 alone there were 21,000 "documented worker deaths in the United States.

True, but not as a result of forced labor, interment, torture, or murder.

That Stalin also had other forced, internal and external to contend with does not make this comparison any less valid.

If you're comparing the fact that the poor were used as laborers in both instances, fine. That part is true. Not much else to compare though.

PSUFAN wrote:Andrew Carnegie was indeed a peasant. His family left Scotland because they had run out of prospects utterly.

There's no way around it - Carnegie was basically a man who went from rags to riches. Portraying him as the son of privilege or even of comfort is simply not accurate.

I did not portray him as a son of privilege. But there's a HUGE difference between being the son of a tradesman forced out of work thanks to the steam loom and a son of a peasant.

Washington Spradling Sr
Frederick Douglass

etc...

Sons of slaves who rose through the classes.

BSmack wrote:And some more examples....

J.P. Morgan- Born in Hartford, Connecticut to Junius Spencer Morgan (1813–1890); and Juliet Pierpont (1816-1884) of Boston, Massachusetts. Junius was a partner of George Peabody and the founder of the house of J. S. Morgan & Co. in London. Morgan was educated at the English High School of Boston and at the University of Göttingen. He was a prominent member of the Protestant Episcopal Church.

Cornelius Vanderbilt- was the fourth of nine children born in Port Richmond on Staten Island in New York to a family of modest means. His great-great-great-grandfather, Jan Aertson, was a Dutch farmer from the village of De Bilt in Utrecht, the Netherlands, who immigrated to New York as an indentured servant in 1650.

Leland Stanford: He was born in Watervliet, New York, one of eight children of Josiah and Elizabeth Phillips Stanford. Stanford's ancestors settled in the Mohawk Valley of New York around 1720. He attended Clinton Liberal Institute, in Clinton, New York, and studied law at Cazenovia Seminary in Cazenovia, New York and later in Albany. He was admitted to the bar in 1848, and then moved to Port Washington, Wisconsin. He married Jane Elizabeth Lathrop in Albany on September 30, 1850.

Still nary a peasant amongst them.

So what? They started out small, they worked hard and they became wealthy. You compare them to Stalin for that?

Tom In VA wrote:Washington Spradling Sr
Frederick Douglass

etc...

Sons of slaves who rose through the classes.

Washington Spradling Sr., born in 1805 to a farm overseer and a slave in Jefferson County, would, by 1860, own property worth more than $25,000, making him one of Louisville's richest residents.

His father's will provided for his and his mother's emancipation, and in 1825, he gained his freedom. A thrifty and shrewd barber, Spradling used his savings to buy real estate. It appreciated as the city grew, and he also built dwellings and subdivided land.

As for Douglass, I would hardly call him a robber baron.

Mister Bushice wrote:So what? They started out small, they worked hard and they became wealthy. You compare them to Stalin for that?

I compare them to Stalin's plant managers.

Where exactly did you mention anyone but Stalin prior to this?

Mister Bushice wrote:Where exactly did you mention anyone but Stalin prior to this?

Why must you continue to play the foolish consistency game?

The comparison was simple and very direct. It was not meant as a comparison to everything Stalin did, only a comment on the viability of socialism and Stalin's exploitation of the peasant classes.

Reagan was senile while in office.

Reagan presided over the most corrupt administration to date--the number of indictments, convictions, forced resignations and investigations of members of his administration FAR exceeded that of the Nixon gang, which had held the record for criminality.

Upon taking office, Reagan immediately transformed the U.S. economy from the biggest creditor nation to the biggest debtor nation, and his "trickle down" theory of economics was a disaster for Americans who earn less than $200,000 per year.

His kowtowing to the Military Industrial Complex was obscene, culminating in the lunacy of the "Star Wars" scheme.

The Soviet Union would have collapsed regardless of his hollow rethoric and astrology-based advice from his ONLY real friend in the world, Nancy.


Ronald Reagan, truly one of the worst presidents in history.

As for a"dignified" president, how about Ike? He had no scandals, and boldly--NOBLY--warned the American people in his farewell address about the dire threat of the Military Industrial Complex (ie, Cheney, Rummy, and the rest of the neocon CHICKENHAWKS)

LTS TRN 2 wrote:... and boldly--NOBLY--warned the American people in his farewell address about the dire threat of the Military Industrial Complex ......

That's kind of like a football player who retires and says "Football is a tough, violent sport".

No shit sherlock, IKE, was born out of the Military Industrial Complex.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Ronald Reagan, truly one of the worst presidents in history.

Then I guess there have maybe then 4-5 good Presidents in this great country's history?

Cicero wrote:
Then I guess there have maybe then 4-5 good Presidents in this great country's history?

"good" is a relative term.....what's "good" by your standards might not be "good" by mine......

define "good" and you'll have a starting point.....

Tom In VA wrote:

BSmack wrote:
What other system provides the ability for people to jump from class to class based on their own initiative, innovativeness, effort, desire or lack thereof ?

America has the lowest transition rate from poverty to wealth in the industrialized word.

mvscal wrote:

Martyred wrote:America has the lowest transition rate from poverty to wealth in the industrialized word.

Wrong.

Yep.....that pretty much sums up all your posts.

Martyred wrote:
America has the lowest transition rate from poverty to wealth in the industrialized word.

I feel funny asking you to name names. But will ya ?


Sincerely,
McCarthy In VA

Hey Tom,

you do know about Wolfgang's Vault, don't you?

Tom In VA wrote:
No I believe I'm correct. 100% Socialism being unable to sustain itself for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is HUMAN NATURE, is in fact a primary argument against it.

Wrong once again, newbie. Social Darwinism isn't Darwin and it isn't science - human nature and human conditioning are entirely seperate things.
There is no natural law that decrees people must produce privately for exchange and no natural law that says it's impossible to produce in a socialist manner.

and hi, welcome to the board.

Phibes,

So you're telling me that HUMAN NATURE has never been used as an argument against socialism.

Yet from a socialist website I pull:

One of the major arguments against socialism is the claim that human nature is intrinsically selfish and warlike

Thanks for the welcome. But if that's indicative of your intellectual honesty ... I'll apply the "grain of salt" to your posts.

Tom In VA wrote:Phibes,

So you're telling me that HUMAN NATURE has never been used as an argument against socialism.

Yet from a socialist website I pull:

One of the major arguments against socialism is the claim that human nature is intrinsically selfish and warlike

Thanks for the welcome. But if that's indicative of your intellectual honesty ... I'll apply the "grain of salt" to your posts.

Tom,

I'm pretty sure that Phibes was referring specifically to natural law, and not the arguments that poorly informed people have used against socialism.

You were saying something about intellectual honesty?

BSmack wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:Phibes,

So you're telling me that HUMAN NATURE has never been used as an argument against socialism.

Yet from a socialist website I pull:

One of the major arguments against socialism is the claim that human nature is intrinsically selfish and warlike

Thanks for the welcome. But if that's indicative of your intellectual honesty ... I'll apply the "grain of salt" to your posts.

Tom,

I'm pretty sure that Phibes was referring specifically to natural law, and not the arguments that poorly informed people have used against socialism.

You were saying something about intellectual honesty?

Yeah I asked if the argument was used and he said it was not.


Pretty dishonest, as is your post.

Tom In VA wrote:Yeah I asked if the argument was used and he said it was not. Pretty dishonest, as is your post.

No, he shredded that argument.

BSmack wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:Yeah I asked if the argument was used and he said it was not. Pretty dishonest, as is your post.

No, he shredded that argument.

My question had always been whether or not the argument had been used.

I've no use engaging in the actual argument. Socialism has it's detractors and it's supporters. All the arguments have been made.

The proof is in the pudding.

Continue your insults and lies B. You're still here in the U.S. so I can see that while you might support socialism, you're too into getting your own goodies to actually abandon this country and go to a socialist state. Actions speak louder than words and as long as your zip is in the U.S. you prefer capitalism to socialism.

Same with Phibes. Last I checked Canada isn't socialist either.

Tom In VA wrote:My question had always been whether or not the argument had been used.

OK, the argument has been used. I'm pretty sure that at some point and time in your life you have also been called a homo. So what's your point fag? ;)

I've no use engaging in the actual argument. Socialism has it's detractors and it's supporters. All the arguments have been made.

The proof is in the pudding.

Continue your insults and lies B. You're still here in the U.S. so I can see that while you might support socialism, you're too into getting your own goodies to actually abandon this country and go to a socialist state. Actions speak louder than words and as long as your zip is in the U.S. you prefer capitalism to socialism. Same with Phibes. Last I checked Canada isn't socialist either.

I prefer a meritocracy. But that doesn't exist. You know, human nature and all that rot.

So why does socialism fail ?

Tom In VA wrote:So why does socialism fail ?

Who said it failed?

Mikey wrote:Hey Tom,

you do know about Wolfgang's Vault, don't you?

Hey Mikey. Not until you brought it up, thanks.

BSmack wrote:Who said it failed?

Hundreds of Dead Heads preaching socialism yet relying on capitalism to get from show to show on tour.