Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Dishevelled Den]

Interesting and enjoyable thread - well done to the contributors.

[cem_devecioglu]

Interesting and enjoyable thread - well done to the contributors.

 

[Rods2]

You make the assumption that I know nothing about Russian history, where I have read quite a lot of history books on the country and their Communist leaders including Stalin. Some have been written by western authors, some Russian translations from Russian authors, where since the fall of communism their archives have been made available to many historians.

Part of learning about Communist Russia, has been talking to my Ukrainian wife's family about their lives under communist rule. To dismiss what my mother-in-law and my wife has told me as cold war propaganda, where they are Ukrainian and lived under these conditions and have told me in their own words, I find a bit insulting to be honest as my wifes family were there and experience life first hand. If they had said it was a brilliant system, that is what I would tell you but it wasn't. The only thing they say were better under communism than now is free health care and less corrupt higher education system. Almost everything else is better. Now this a a rural area, so things may have been different in the cities. I can only report what I have been told.

Russia went from Czar feudal society to Bolshevik feudal society. Like I have stated above, in a socialist society you have no rights or freedom as you belong to the state.

In the Czar feudal system you did well if you were under the patronage of the Czar as a favoured person. The same was true under the Bolsheviks. If you were a member of the communist party and had the right connections (patronage), you could do very well. For most other people it was grinding poverty.

In the late 1940's / early 1950's if Russia was doing so well, why were there no shoes in many parts of the Ukraine, my mother-in-law along with most of the village children (exceptions were favoured members or senior people in local communist party under party patronage). My mother-in-law if she was lucky when in winter weather, she had cardboard on her feet in winter temperatures often -25degC or lower. My wife often talks about empty shops in the communist era and as soon as you heard something had arrived like tins of fish, all locals would rush there and queue for hours, sometimes days, to get a few cans before the shop was empty for another 6 months. We are talking about the 1970's and 80's here. Many things my wife only saw like chocolate, soap, shampoo, was when here older brothers were conscripted into the army, where they could purchase such item either because they were posted to a big city or from a military only shop. They were reliant on feeding themselves from their 0.4 hectare (1 acre) smallholding. The only people with cars were party officials or black market criminals, which later formed the core of the Russian mafia.

In 1932-33 Stalin and his Communist party caused an artificial famine, due to resistance to collectivization. They staving 5-8m of the Ukrainian population to death, a good way to treat people and run a country? Yes / No? My wife's family were very lucky to survive as many in her village died, where they were right in the middle one of the worst affected area. My wife's grand mother only lived as they had cherry trees on their smallholding (all their crops and livestock had been confiscated, and if a search revealed any food, the family disappeared, either shot or sent to a gulag in Siberia.) and they kept bees. They just survived by eating cherry tree leaves and honey. Fortunately, they were an unusually small family for that time, there were only two children, if it had been a bigger they would not have survived and my wife would never had existed.

http://holodomorct.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_famine_of_1932%E2%80%931933

If you read this text, in the history section you will see 'Uman' mentioned, which is the nearest city 30 miles (45km) from my wife's village. My wife went to university there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

In the Great Patriotic War there were more Ukrainians killed per head of population than from any other region of the USSR, where Stalin always considered Ukrainian nationalism a threat, so used them as cannon fodder,. It was normally Ukrainians that cleared minefields by walking across them to lead an attack. The Nazis were no better when they occupied the land, as they wanted to clear it of the indigenous population except for a few slaves to be used by Germans and install their own population. Jew were exterminated. In my wife's local town Talne the Jews were all shot by the Nazis and buried in a mass grave. Once a resistance movement had formed, the Nazis used to kill 100 of the local population every time a German soldier was killed. My wife's grand father was in the red army and was killed in 1944.

Modern Ukraine still has many problems as a legacy of the communist era, but it is slowly improving. Political corruption and patronage is still a major problem, along with the old soviet system where you normally had bribe an official to get anything done.

[cem_devecioglu]

Rods , my wife is Romanian and her story is no different than your wife.. and she told me that most of their animals and farm lands have been taken.. yes thats true.. and the links I give approve that..
 
but problem is there is a different big picture that which they can tell only their part..
 
and its not correct to say that I assume you dont know Russian history.. the paragraph you supplied only showed a part of picture which alone is lacking many facts..
 
Now its correct to say Czar feudal society but Bolshevik feudal society wont be correct as they created a large heavy industry and defeated a heavy industrial country like Germany even when their republic was so young..
 
the days of Stalins power is long gone.. he was a violent dictator .. no doubt .. but blaming the socialist system regarding those events is unjustifiable..
 
besides just look in the history of capitalism.. for how much money children was working at the factories and for how many hours when the industrial revolution hit UK.. there are many examples in history that I can give .. 

[albitz]

.....But those who were working in factories in the early days of the industrial revolution here,had previously been peasants who were impoverished,often starved if they had a poor crop,had no access to any kind of medical treatment,education etc.
As the industrial revolution progressed many factory owners had a philanthropical attitude to their workers and local communities.
The company I worked for throughout the 1980,s was founded in the Victorian era by a capitilast.The working conditions would have been poor by todays standards,but he built hundreds of houses for the workers as well as a library,school,etc.etc. and in fact the whole village grew up around this factory.The infrastructure created at that time mostly remains to this day,and the workers cottages (one of which I lived in and later bought) now sell for around £175,000.
This wasnt a rare occurrence,it was quite common up and down the country.If it hadnt been for the industrial revolution we wouldnt have the educated,affluent population that we have today.We would still mostly be living off the land and be truely backward,ignorant people.

[cem_devecioglu]

.....But those who were working in factories in the early days of the industrial revolution here,had previously been peasants who were impoverished,often starved if they had a poor crop,had no access to any kind of medical treatment,education etc.
As the industrial revolution progressed many factory owners had a philanthropical attitude to their workers and local communities.
The company I worked for throughout the 1980,s was founded in the Victorian era by a capitilast.The working conditions would have been poor by todays standards,but he built hundreds of houses for the workers as well as a library,school,etc.etc. and in fact the whole village grew up around this factory.The infrastructure created at that time mostly remains to this day,and the workers cottages (one of which I lived in and later bought) now sell for around £175,000.
This wasnt a rare occurrence,it was quite common up and down the country.If it hadnt been for the industrial revolution we wouldnt have the educated,affluent population that we have today.We would still mostly be living off the land and be truely backward,ignorant people.

 

[albitz]

Caring Capitalism Cem.It can be done.

[cem_devecioglu]

Caring Capitalism Cem.It can be done.

I hope so..    but name always reminds me to take more than you give

[albitz]

Doesnt have to be that way.Mutually beneficial is a good way to do business.

[Sir Tigger KC]

.....But those who were working in factories in the early days of the industrial revolution here,had previously been peasants who were impoverished,often starved if they had a poor crop,had no access to any kind of medical treatment,education etc.
As the industrial revolution progressed many factory owners had a philanthropical attitude to their workers and local communities.
The company I worked for throughout the 1980,s was founded in the Victorian era by a capitilast.The working conditions would have been poor by todays standards,but he built hundreds of houses for the workers as well as a library,school,etc.etc. and in fact the whole village grew up around this factory.The infrastructure created at that time mostly remains to this day,and the workers cottages (one of which I lived in and later bought) now sell for around £175,000.
This wasnt a rare occurrence,it was quite common up and down the country.If it hadnt been for the industrial revolution we wouldnt have the educated,affluent population that we have today.We would still mostly be living off the land and be truely backward,ignorant people.

I think there's still a fair few about Albs!   

[cem_devecioglu]

Doesnt have to be that way.Mutually beneficial is a good way to do business.

honestly speaking we are no different than slaves or peasants whatever you call..  thus mutually beneficial is valid for us.. as actually we are not big players.. but big players have with different rules I'm afraid..

[Dishevelled Den]

Doesnt have to be that way.Mutually beneficial is a good way to do business.

I didn't intend getting involved in this son, other that enjoying the quality of debate, but sometimes when I think of this age old question of which system is ‘best’, I can’t help thinking that it is essentially an unanswerable question.

It is so, to my mind at least, because each system can be lauded by those who have the belief that theirs is best when, in actuality, each holds some measure of merit.

That merit is soon perverted however by those very people who claim ownership of their version of it because, like so many others, they are open to as many prejudices and failings as those who champion the opposing ethos.

Each of these great pillars of belief will always founder on the frailty of the human condition for essentially – irrespective of capitalist or socialist orientation - we each of us are, for the most part, more inclined to look after ourselves or those close to us; so the notion of beneficial capitalism or socialism (to the individual or the integrity of the state) will always be dependent on how well each individual existing within, and subject to, the rigors of that system feels about how its treating them.

I think it fair to say that many people have been cruelly exploited as a result of socialism (sadly often practised in a totalitarian way) but then, it must also be said, many have been exploited by what is an essentially top down system of capitalism - and we have seen the less desirable aspect of that in the recent financial woes experienced throughout the world, the turmoil within Europe and the dictatorial system that passes for parliamentary democracy in this country.

So, having thought about it, until such times when humanism begins to seep within the souls of the world’s people we will continue to have those who believe that they, and they alone, support the only true system and that those who believe other wise, are wrong.

As far as I can see the argument over the relative merits of the opposing systems may well become moot given the state of world affairs at the moment.

The prime cause for concern in that case may well be about having sufficient water to drink, food to eat and safety to live out our daily lives, rather than the importance of esoteric concerns over the dogma of whether or not capitalism trumps socialism.

Having said that, it is of the utmost importance to continue to think about these things - as only through debate and listening to the views of others can we learn, and as a result hopefully develop our understanding to a point where these differences begin to become less important and our commonality comes to the fore.

[cem_devecioglu]

Doesnt have to be that way.Mutually beneficial is a good way to do business.

I didn't intend getting involved in this son, other that enjoying the quality of debate, but sometimes when I think of this age old question of which system is ‘best’, I can’t help thinking that it is essentially an unanswerable question.

It is so, to my mind at least, because each system can be lauded by those who have the belief that theirs is best when, in actuality, each holds some measure of merit.

That merit is soon perverted however by those very people who claim ownership of their version of it because, like so many others, they are open to as many prejudices and failings as those who champion the opposing ethos.

Each of these great pillars of belief will always founder on the frailty of the human condition for essentially – irrespective of capitalist or socialist orientation - we each of us are, for the most part, more inclined to look after ourselves or those close to us; so the notion of beneficial capitalism or socialism (to the individual or the integrity of the state) will always be dependent on how well each individual existing within, and subject to, the rigors of that system feels about how its treating them.


 
I think it fair to say that many people have been cruelly exploited as a result of socialism (sadly often practised in a totalitarian way) but then, it must also be said, many have been exploited by what is an essentially top down system of capitalism - and we have seen the less desirable aspect of that in the recent financial woes experienced throughout the world, the turmoil within Europe and the dictatorial system that passes for parliamentary democracy in this country.

So, having thought about it, until such times when humanism begins to seep within the souls of the world’s people we will continue to have those who believe that they, and they alone, support the only true system and that those who believe other wise, are wrong.

As far as I can see the argument over the relative merits of the opposing systems may well become moot given the state of world affairs at the moment.

The prime cause for concern in that case may well be about having sufficient water to drink, food to eat and safety to live out our daily lives, rather than the importance of esoteric concerns over the dogma of whether or not capitalism trumps socialism.

Having said that, it is of the utmost importance to continue to think about these things - as only through debate and listening to the views of others can we learn, and as a result hopefully develop our understanding to a point where these differences begin to become less important and our commonality comes to the fore.

good one Den

[Rods2]

There have been many countries that have adopted communism or Lenin / Marx socialism, the link below provides a list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_countries

Please tell me which of these countries have been successful, so successful they are still using such a system and have a higher PPP, than their capitalist counter parts. Most communist states like china, Vietnam have introduced capitalism as they have found that socialism just does not work.

I'm not going to say that all socialist reform is bad and as an example when you have a small landowning class and a population that is incapable of industrialization (which is how the UK escaped this situation) that sensible land reform so the majority of the citizens can get a foothold in society and a ladder to which through hard work they can lift themselves out of slums and poverty. But IMHE mass market socialism destroys wealth and impoverishes people, so you have an equality of misery apart from the ruling class.

In the UK cooperatives are allowed and there are two big examples. The Co-Op chain of retail businesses which includes their own bank and The John Lewis Partnership. Where they are different to a socialist / communist cooperative is that they are run like capitalist business, with different pays scales for different levels of responsibility, but they are non-profit making in the sense that staff get to share the profits as they are essentially the share holders.

In a free society you can set up many types of businesses, if you are the founder, your business your choice on its ethos.

This country has a rich foundation based upon the generosity of many rich company owners. Some of which like social housing in London are still running today.

The Supermarine Spitfire would not have been designed and built, like it was, if it had not been for the Schneider Trophy winning aircraft designs by R J Mitchell with the financial support from Lady Houston who married into the rich landed gentry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy,_Lady_Houston

Rich people are also an important source of funding for start up businesses. In the UK their is a strong Business Angel network for this, which is an important source of funding which does not involve banks.

The problem with Western societies at the moment is that there are too many people that do not pull their weight in society, where they are heavily subsidized by the rich who volunteer to pay taxes in their own country and the middle classes. This system has been set up by socialist politicians. An icon of how successful a low tax, low regulation capitalist country can be is Hong Kong.

At the moment most investment is difficult to justify, while the country is in a depression. The only way out of it is supply side reform as there is much too much business regulation, bank reform, executive pay reform, political reform, a shrinking public sector and reduced taxes. There is no main stream political party in the UK prepared to tackle these problems along with the French socialist system being forced upon us by the EU. So I can't see where any future economic growth is going to come from. We will be like Japan, although for very different reasons with at best many years of stagflation or even more likely after the 13 years of misrule and crazy borrowing by our last Socialist Government, which has helped to make us the most indebted nation on earth, by 2015 it is looking likely that we will a have bankrupt country which will have to default.

Under our last social Government misrule we went from one of the top 10 most competitive countries to not making the top 20. The same with English, Maths and Science, we are no longer in the top 20 let alone the top 10 in the world like we used to be. They have completely screwed up to higher education system, where they set a target for 50% of people to go to university, most of of this new influx taking degrees that were a waste of time and many finding the best employment they could then find after graduation was a McJob flipping burgers.

And all socialist politicians are attracted to the new modern religions of Climate Change and Ecosystems, as a method of taxing and duping the population through propaganda on how necessary, wonderful and enlightening these new religions are, so they are throwing huge sums of tax payers money into things that will not work.

With Dens comments I agree that we should not be dogmatic, but always look for the best solution. This is lost on the current generation of politicians with very few exceptions, who are there for what they can make. Modern day politicians with a few exceptions are there for not what can I do for my country, but what can my country do for me!

All humans are essentially selfish, it is part of our survival mechanism. That was the very point made by Adam Smith on why capitalism works.

The basics that we need are water, food / energy, clothes and shelter. Food and energy are linked together as humans cannot survive without cooking food. In Greece there are charity soup kitchens, in the UK energy poverty is an increasing problems and is going to get worse due to subsidies to appease the Climate Change High Priests and Gods.

So politics and debate do matter over systems and laws as whether we like it or not we are ruled by politicians and the things they do and mistakes they make can have profound effects on everybody's lives.

[cem_devecioglu]

There have been many countries that have adopted communism or Lenin / Marx socialism, the link below provides a list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_countries

Please tell me which of these countries have been successful, so successful they are still using such a system and have a higher PPP, than their capitalist counter parts. Most communist states like china, Vietnam have introduced capitalism as they have found that socialism just does not work.

 still you want me to start the debate with capitalist ready acceptances.. first you have to proove that..