the rich, the poor, taxes, and subsidies

[Spinner]

Denithar... let's not say "you are wrong".. it is his opinion and although this is a debate, opinions should be respected. How about, "I think you're wrong" or "I disagree",etc... just suggesting...

PS. I thought a socialist society meant a state of classlessness....

[Denithar]

I respect Gilly very much. But I can call a view wrong.

Socialism: Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government.

Socialists tout the idea of classlessness, but obviously the men who are controlling the production are the elite class.

[Gil Alexander]

Yes, Den, please, have a little more respect; I'm not saying "your wrong" to subjective opinions that could never be proven nor disproven.

denithar said:

There is no democratic base to a communist economy! Socialist economics only works if there is an elite ruling class who controls the lives of the rest.

I know that communism could work; it would just be extremely difficult.

And I say you're wrong.

Maybe the only thing that needs to change are people's attitudes.

And again, you're wrong. Explain to me how a socialist economy would work without taking away the freedom that I personally will never give up.

You say "without the freedom that I personally will never give up." What freedom is that? Please excuse me if I'm being ignorant, lol.

[Denithar]

Alright, for you Gilly I shall be more respectful. However, that socialism does not work has been proven... what way is there to prove something other than trying it and seeing if it works? And that is what happened in countries all over the world.

You say "without the freedom that I personally will never give up." What freedom is that? Please excuse me if I'm being ignorant, lol.

Voting freedom, my dear chap. Democracy.

[Gil Alexander]

Voting freedom, my dear chap. Democracy.

Okay, thank you for the clarification. But it's okay, I get it, you're a nationalistic American with the utmost faith in capitalism. But the question isn't whether you would be willing to give up voting rights; it's whether or not communism is possible in this world. You are not everyone. So many people in this world would be willing to give up those voting rights. And plus, even if everyone was like that, people might just need to change their attitudes towards communism, and be a little more open. Capitalism can't the best possible economic system.

[Angie]

I would just like to jump in for a moment to point out that it is generally human nature to want to rule your own life as much as possible, is it not? I think that even if there were a strong campaign out there to try to convince the public of communism's potential, the majority of the citizens of currently democratic countries would probably be extremely difficult (potentially almost impossible) to convince that it is better than the system we have now because they would probably want a system with more freedoms as opposed to one that attempts to suppress (sp?) these rights which many people have become so accustomed to believing are deserved by all people as members of humanity. (WOW, that sentence was way too long. I apologize, but I'm not going to bother rewording it. . .)

[Deleted]

Ok, I will put a little into this debate seeing as I have spent 2 years studying Russia.

Communist Russian Economy

ok. Under communism, I would like to point out, that as with every new policy/ tactics, there will always be a slight dip in production as it is introduced. However, communism was highly effective in an industrial sense once it took hold.

The Second Five Year Plan of 1932.

The Second Five-Year Plan gave heavy industry top priority, although communications, especially railways, became important to link cities and industrial centres. New industries, such as chemicals and metallurgy grew enormously. It also brought a spectacular rise in steel production, more than 17 million tons, placing the Soviet Union not far behind Germany as one of the major steel-producing countries of the world.

State contolled industry is obviously working here, is it not?

The Third Five-Year Plan ran for only 3 years, up to 1941, when Russia entered the Second World War.

The Russian anual industrial growth rose from 12% to 13%. Though you may look at these figures and laugh, to a nation who's industry has always lagged far behind, this was a fairly sizable figure.

The Fourth and Fifth Plans, 1946-1950 and 1951-1955

After the Second World War, the emphasis was on reconstruction, and Stalin in 1945 promised that the USSR would be the leading industrial power by 1960.

Much of the USSR at this stage had been devastated by the war. Officially, 98,000 collective farms had been ransacked and ruined, with the loss of 137,000 tractors, 49,000 combine harvesters, 7 million horses, 17 million cattle, 20 million pigs, 27 million sheep; 25% of all capital equipment had been destroyed in 35,000 plants and factories; 6 million buildings, including 40,000 hospitals, in 70,000 villages and 4,710 towns (40% urban housing) were destroyed, leaving 25 million homeless; about 40% of railway tracks had been destroyed; officially 7.5 million servicemen died, plus 6 million civilians, but perhaps 20 million in all died. In 1945, mining and metallurgy were at 40% of the 1940 levels, electric power was down to 52%, pig-iron 26% and steel 45%; food production was 60% of the 1940 level. After Poland, the USSR had been the hardest hit by the war. Reconstruction was impeded by a chronic labour shortage due to the enormous number of Soviet casualties in the war. Moreover, 1946 was the driest year since 1891, and the harvest was poor.

The USA and USSR were unable to agree on the terms of a US loan to aid reconstruction, and this was a contributing factor in the rapid escalation of the Cold War. However, the USSR did gain reparations from Germany, and made Eastern European countries make payments in return for the Soviets having liberated them from the Nazis. in 1949, the Comecon (Council for Mutual Economic Aid) was set up, linking the Eastern bloc countries economically. One-third of the Fourth Plan's capital expenditure was spent on Ukraine, which was important agriculturally and industrially, and which had been one of the areas most devastated by war.

In 1947, food rationing was ended, but agricultural production was barely above the 1940 level by 1952. However, industrial production in 1952 was nearly double the 1940 level.

Communism does work, however, it was never really given a chance. It was always seen as evil and destructive, but it does work rather effectively. I personally am not a supporter of communism, but those are the facts.

and that is all I have to say for now as I really ought to get on with my History essay now. All these facts and figures were taken from my history notes btw. Don't ask me to source them all cause I haven't a clue

and apologies for spelling mistakes

[Gil Alexander]

denithar said:

I respect Gilly very much. But I can call a view wrong.

Socialism: Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government.

Socialists tout the idea of classlessness, but obviously the men who are controlling the production are the elite class.

I didn't see this post earlier. Even in the definition you wrote, it says that the system of authority in socialism doesn't need to be the "men" of the "elite class." It can be owned collectively. But that's beside the point, anyway - since everyone is equal, being of the "elite social class" wouldn't mean anything because there wouldn't be one. If it has an elite ruling class, it wouldn't resemble socialism much at all; it would be akin to feudalism.

[Denithar]

Okay, I don't know how to argue with this. Your debating the validity of perfect socialism, which of course would not be possible given that we're working with humans. I was arguing against socialism as it turns out in real life. So I must agree with you. If you could get everyone to be nice and work together, then yes, Socialism is a wonderful system, better than Capitalism.

And Shmuggles, I didn't dispute the productivity of communism, only the worthiness. The cost of the productivity you speak of was human blood and freedom. But good luck with that paper. Looks like you are doing some good research. (In my classes we have to cite where all our information comes from... you're a lucky bugger. )

[Deleted]

I can type up a nice lengthy paper for you guys on the bad sides of communist russia if you would like

communism boosted russia forward in the international industrial productivity market. they were suddenly exporting thousands of tonnes of grain and their industrial production on the whole was higher than ever before. However, censorship, gulags, siberia, work targets, ID "cards" of a sort, the cheka then the NVKD and the communist political system all made it rather hard on the citizens of Russia, yes. It works but it does require a lot of... input. Communism could function without the extremes employed in the USSR however...

and den, the reason we don't have to list our sources is because we are expected to write... 2 2000ish word essays on 2 questions (given on the exam date) at one hour for each. The examiners (thankfully) feel it would be a touch harsh on us poor candidates to remember 4000 words of high quality facts and still remember where they came from ;D

and then there's the other part of the course which involves documents, their provenance, analysis of their content and then a massive amount of relevant recall. So there is a little to learn yeah.... all in 6 months. and that's only for history ;D

[Denithar]

Not a bad little debate. I won't declare a winner in this case because I participated and that gives a definite bias. Everybody give yourself a hand, it was fun.