|
|
Post by The Lost One on Jun 29, 2021 14:12:37 GMT
Well the Soviets ended Russian involvement in WW1 so that's thousands saved straight off the bat. Life expectancy, literacy etc all increased (and decreased following Yeltsin's takeover). And limited as political power was, people had far more say than they did under the tsars. I expanded my previous answer to address that. Also if you unironicaly compare the US prison system to Soviet gulags you really should take yourself out of this debate... You can read excerpts from the CIA documents on Gulags here: stalinistkatyusha.wixsite.com/stalinist-katyusha/single-post/2018/10/04/the-truth-about-the-soviet-gulag-surprisingly-revealed-by-the-ciaOf course, you'll probably not accept the editorial line of the article and that's fair enough - but the documents themselves are clearly referenced and they paint a very different picture of the gulags than is often presented in the west and from a source that is hostile but needs to be accurate. I think considering the massive problems in the US prison system, a comparison of the two is warranted, even if you conclude the US system is better.
|
|
|
|
Post by alfromni on Jun 29, 2021 14:22:52 GMT
To The Lost One Thanks for the url. www.salon.com/2014/03/08/35_countries_the_u_s_has_backed_international_crime_partner/But it also proves my point... "Most exploited countries are poor and exploited by their own leaders. Any aid given never reaches those for whom it's intended, but in the pockets of said leaders". Many cartels are in charge of such countries so can be classed as leaders. All countries deal and trade with all other countries, whether capitalist or marxist. That said the debate is about what Marxism creates. |
|
|
|
Post by The Lost One on Jun 29, 2021 14:49:08 GMT
Many cartels are in charge of such countries so can be classed as leaders. All countries deal and trade with all other countries, whether capitalist or marxist. That said the debate is about what Marxism creates. True. My argument is that for these people in such countries, they would be less exploited under socialism whether by their own leaders, foreign investors or both. Being a bit of a nitpicker here, but technically Marxism isn't an alternative to capitalism, it's a system of assessing capitalism and other economic systems in terms of their inherent contradictions and class warfare. For Marxists, capitalism is a necessary stage in the development of society, to the extent that some Marxists (eg Zinoviev and Kamenev) opposed the October Revolution on the grounds that capitalism had to be allowed to develop to a certain level before socialism could be successful. You also see this kinda thinking in the current Chinese Communist Party that believes Mao pushed for socialism (and even full communism) too soon and it is necessary to supervise a period of capitalist growth before fully transitioning to socialism. Other Marxists disagree of course!
|
|
|
|
Post by loofapotato on Jun 29, 2021 17:33:30 GMT
I've read a comment somewhere that said Karl Marx would have never liked his idea to be implemented in the USSR. He was more interested about doing it in the U.S.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Lost One on Jun 29, 2021 18:24:44 GMT
I've read a comment somewhere that said Karl Marx would have never liked his idea to be implemented in the USSR. He was more interested about doing it in the U.S. Yes, he thought that the revolution should take place in the country where capitalism was at its most developed as this would give socialism the strongest base and would provide the best springboard for other revolutions across the world. I believe Britain was his preferred choice, but the USA or France could probably have done. Russia he had severe doubts about as it retained many of the trappings of feudalism and was an economic lightweight on the world stage. |
|
|
|
Post by loofapotato on Jun 29, 2021 22:17:56 GMT
I've read a comment somewhere that said Karl Marx would have never liked his idea to be implemented in the USSR. He was more interested about doing it in the U.S. Yes, he thought that the revolution should take place in the country where capitalism was at its most developed as this would give socialism the strongest base and would provide the best springboard for other revolutions across the world. I believe Britain was his preferred choice, but the USA or France could probably have done. Russia he had severe doubts about as it retained many of the trappings of feudalism and was an economic lightweight on the world stage. I made a mistake. That would be Imperial Russia, not the USSR. However I think Marx would still be disappointed in the USSR.
|
|
|
|
Post by gw on Jun 29, 2021 23:19:33 GMT
Nobody so far as I can tell has addressed outsourcing. Rich countries outsource labor to poorer countries and when one country's currency gets too high or their outsourced workers demand better wages they move their labor to somewhere else. Both local employees from the country that outsources and outsourcees get a raw deal. How do proponents of Capitalism address the economic underclass that seem inherent in it. After all, people expect cheap produce, clothing, and the like and there's been coups to keep the price of produce low in Central America and elsewhere. Would Capitalism work as a system without this underclass making all the products?
|
|
|
|
Post by alfromni on Jun 30, 2021 10:37:46 GMT
Some good points. Sadly it's the way pf the world that many good ideas are perverted into bad ones.
|
|
