Socialist Anarchism

synd · 21-07-2009 1:21am

Socialism seeks to plan production in a centralized, bureaucratic manner, and thus actively seeks to prevent freely interacting individuals from sharing information in a decentralized manner through the mechanism of the market. Socialism may (inefficiently and clumsily) be able to plan the production and distribution of some existing products—but it cannot anticipate shifting demand, taste, fashion, and preferences. By what mechanism would the iPod ever come into existence in a socialist world?

Socialist production is not to be confused with a centralized command economy, production is for the most part not determined by some central authority, luxury goods would be determined by consumer preference. Large scale works such as roads, air-line co-ordination, train systems, water supply, housing and telecommunications would obviously be centralized. Production with regards commodities would utilize both consumer demand and expectation, as occurs under existing capitalism. You consistently assert that planning is (impossible) - this is due to what I can only observe as your complete ignorance as to how existing capitalism actually functions. Capital does not produce for immediate markets, it produces on future expectation, making use of consumption trends to (plan outcomes), a method that utilizing modern technology has proven itself exceedingly accurate.

This shows (again) how you fail to understand the Austrians' insight that the free market is not just a mechanism for efficiently allocating resources; it is (perhaps more importantly) a mechanism for sharing and coordinating information. It's worth noting that more astute socialists than you have foundered because they didn't have a nuanced enough appreciation for what a market actually is, and what it does.

I understand how existing capitalism works very well, it is you who doesn't have the slightest notion of how a real economy functions, you consistently confuse your textbook utopia with the real market. Furthermore, what you mean when you say information is not information is the normative sense, what you mean is ''knowledge conductive to the process of profit accumulation'', which in order to be protected under the inherent stipulations of liberal capitalism must necessarily entail a ban on information (in the normative sense) from passing freely between individuals, as in the case of intellectual property. Nor does the capitalist market efficiently allocate resources - (again your engaging in idiosyncratic re-definition), what you mean when you say efficient is (efficiency so far as profit accumulation is conencered) -- needless to say the production of skin lotion for a wealthy market is more profitable than the production of generic drugs for life threatening illnesses in the third world. The market therefore does not entail ''efficient use of resources'' using normative terminology in that supply does not reflect needs ''or even wants for that matter''.

I don't believe in a "divine spirit" running an economy—in fact I don't believe in divinity at all—but I do believe that free individuals acting through free markets can produce what the Austrians have termed "spontaneous order." That's another principle on which socialists founder: You don't believe that order can exist without somebody having created and implemented it.

Very little human activity is ''spontaneous'' we observe, conceptualize and plan before acting without even realizing it. About the only thing I can describe as ''spontaneous'' in humans are involuntary spasms.

You have been reduced to making cult like assertions - consumer behavior exists independent of the capitalist market, people want commodities and will attempt to acquire them under any system of socio economic organization.Cult-like assertions?" I've simply pointed to the very real historical fact that socialist regimes have never succeeded in quashing consumer demand or in eradicating markets. Endemic shortages and bottlenecks in socialist regimes have always forced people to trade goods and services on the black market. In the former USSR, many coordination, production, and distribution decisions ultimately shifted from the centrally planned system to the alternative underground economy; ironically, this was a major reason why the Soviet Union lasted as long as it did. "Market reforms" were effectively going on long before the Soviets decided to accept them.

The black market existed prior to USSR est through to the period of liberalization. The notable decline in living standards under increased liberalization refutes any argument that it was the ''underground market'' that brought about sustainability, considering it was given more space under liberalization. Additionally, statistics with regards rapidly increasing industrial output in state enterprises dispense of the propagandistic notion that the ''black market drove the economy''.

From a previous post - where your historical distortions on the USSR where exposed

Did the USSR fail ? Well lets look at the facts. The liberal assertion that the USSR was a failure is predicated upon its being compared economically with the USA or Europe within a given time frame - a ridiculous comparison in that that these areas had been developed prior - you would have to go back about 800 years before both economies where alike. The rational comparison would be to look at nations that were similar to the soviet states in 1910 and compare their level of development in 1990. So we could compare Russia and Brazil or Bulgaria and Guatemala ect. Brazil for example should be a wealthy nation given its vast natural resources - peace ect (Russia being destroyed by world wars). Brazil is actually better equipped to develop than Russia ever was. Theirs a reason no-one undertakes the above comparison - because the result exposes liberal sophistry.

For Brazil about 5-10% of the population enjoy a high living standard, however the remaining 80% live in conditions comparable with central Africa. For the vast majority of Brazilians Soviet Russia would have looked like heaven. In fact when you look at the rate of industrial development within the USSR - it surpasses that of the developed western world. Living standards shot up from around 1917 - 1950 in terms of average income. The economy stagnated around the mid 60s until its collapse. Now if we compare living standards from the last period of the soviet regime - to the period of economic liberalization we see something very interesting, massive reduction in living standards and an increase in poverty levels. UNICEF documented half a million additional deaths a year in Russia alone due to the implementation of capitalist reform, or more accurately the removal of social supports and price controls. In the Czech Rep poverty went from 5.7% in 1989 to 18.2% in 1992. In Poland during the same period from 20% -40%. The massive votes retained by the eastern European communist parties aren't hard to explain at all in light of the facts - with the Russian CP alone averaging with roughly a third of the vote. Some months ago Moldova voted the communist party back into power. Now its often thrown around by misinformed liberals that this is due to the ''youth vote'' - who had no experience of soviet misery. The truth is actually the opposite - the majority of communist party voters are the elderly. So did the USSR fail ? - well the USSR had internal problems - social repression, difficulty with adequate production esp in the form of consumer goods ect. However its clear that it resulted in a higher standard of living than economic liberalism would have provided within the given time span.

Why the ongoing metaphors of divinity and spirituality? Libertarians don't believe in some Godlike or divine force that co-ordinates market activity—in fact, the beauty of a market order is that it doesn't rely on any centralizing authority. The order is emergent and organic; there is no guiding hand.

Again, we don't live in decentralized free market system. Existing capitalism is largely centralized and regulated. Moreover, the liberal market is not some natural universal order - its a particular form of socio economic ideology constructed by a propertied interest group.

Why don't you go out and interview the Poles, Slovaks, and Latvians living in our midst and ask whether they consider capitalism to be the "crisis-ridden alternative"? Take a poll and see how many of them would like to go back to socialism.

Communism remains very popular in the ex soviet states, Moldova re-elected the communist party not long ago. The Russian communist party averages with roughly a third of the vote in any given election. As for the assertion that it is popular amongst ''those who never experienced it'' - the truth is actually the opposite, the communist parties votes are predominantly elderly. Likewise in China, Mao is thought of highly among the rural peasantry - while he is condemned by liberal intellectual elites and ex-upper class political dissidents.

As I stated previously, this labour/time model implies that if Picasso spent 30 hours working on a painting, and I spend 30 hours constructing a garden shed, the painting and the garden shed should have the same "social value." That is nonsense, pure and simple.

Many famous artists could not sell their paintings during their lifetimes - the fad that yuppie circles undergo drastically distorts value. Price as found under the capitalist system does not reflect demand in the normative sense - it reflects the ability to pay which is (entirely) different. For instance a wealthy tycoon might not value a Picasso, he can however afford to buy it as can those in a similar position, this can ensure price remains high. Likewise the poor might value food highly but cannot afford it - therefore high demand does not effect price. The central point is that subjective value does not manifest itself in price, contrary to what proponents of bourgeoisie propaganda assert.

Exactly. Socialists believe that we can't have order without organization, and we can't have organization without planning, and we can't have planning without what effectively amounts to a central bureaucratic state, whether you call it by that name or not. You're only proving that socialist anarchism can't actually exist.

First every human activity - no matter how minuscule is planned, from eating your breakfast in the morning to setting up a business. About the only action I think of that is spontaneous is an epileptic fit, needless to say this is not something worth modeling an economy on.

As for socialist anarchism, it exists and functions perfectly well, any claim to the contrary indicates severe dementia. Of course you must, ''according to lord hayek'' claim reality itself to be false when it refutes your theory.''Economic theories can never be verified or falsified by reference to facts. All that we can and must verify is the presence of our assumptions in the particular case" - Hayek, Individualism and Economic Order.

build your factory, and operate according to a system of participatory democracy, feel free. No libertarian is going to stop you. But you can't smugly steal a $90 million ceramics factor from its owner and pretend that you've been successful in establishing a viable operation.

Real capital is built upon expropriated surplus value. In reality all capital is social, workers through socializing capital are merely re-appropriating stolen labor value. The retention of private property by the bourgeoisie is a form of institutionalized theft. Men with guns are coming to get you LOL

Again, this is just scaremongering. Plenty of people in free economies work without "regulation." A gardener comes every fortnight to mow my mother's lawn—and he is, as far as I'm aware, not working under the shadow of any Lawn Mowing Regulatory Authority.

The gardener functions within the confines of a regulated capitalist state. He was educated through public schools, utilized public roads to travel, avails of public health-care and drives a taxed van ect. If you want to see a real ''free market'' visit Somalia.

I think that's an enormously contentious point of view. Look at when and how the American national debt grew. Major highlights include the Civil War, World War I, the New Deal, World War II, Vietnam, the War on Terror, and the corporate bailouts and stimulus packages of the past year. In other words, increased national debt is directly linked to the welfare-warfare state that libertarians so detest.

Yet his point stands, had money supply not been extended in order to stimulate demand and facilitate investment the US would not have the attributes libertarians so often point to in defence of the ''market''. In any case this is a discussion i am having on another thread with silverharp. Although fiat money has setbacks - it undeniably allows the state to offset crisis ect. BTW - I advocate neither fiat or gold sdrd.

But why do you blame the so-called sweatshops for this? Why not look at the governments of these countries? Why not look at their failed (and often explicitly socialistic) policies of protectionism, inflation, and lack of secure property rights? Isn't it obvious that, for many of these countries, poverty is directly related to destructive statism?

The most successful economies in the world have for the most part developed via large scale state regulation. It is in fact the more liberalized markets that tend towards stagnation, poverty ect.

If For every pair of shoes made in a south american sweatshop the local economy gets 5 dollars, and the west gets 60 dollars. Tell me, how is that supposed to help these 'developing countries' develop? First of all, $5 in a poor South American country could easily have the same (or greater) purchasing power as $60 in the United States. Secondly, a basic pragmatic point is that $5 is much better than $0.

I disagree, many hunter gatherer societies enjoy a higher living standard than wage earning inhabitants of shanty towns. Sweatshop workers have no alternate means of economic subsistence, work long hours and are frequently abused ect. An interesting anthropological study on north Brazilian slum dwellers/plantation workers illustrates the indigenous tribal peoples disapproving perception of the township slum dwellers. Nancy Scheper-Hughes - Death without weeping

Just because isolated cooperatives function while embedded within a market economy doesn't imply that "the basis for libertarian socialism is ... proven to work." The cooperative only "works" because of the market economy that surrounds it. If that market economy were to disappear, the cooperative would no longer be able to function.

Anarchist Catalonia was essentially an entire state ie. numerous cities competely collectivized and not at all dependant on external markets. Very successful by all accounts, as in the case of the Zapitista municipalities.

A farmers' market is an example of libertarianism in action.

Yes a farmers market in the confines of a capitalist state, farmers are subject to numerous regulations and receive many subsidies both at national and European level. Unless your referring to farmers markets in Somalia , which are by all accounts closer to your unregulated, decentralized version of capitalism.

The Austrians believe in private property. The socialist anarchist believes there should be no private property. But look at the state of Western public parks, many of which are highly unpleasant environments—unless tightly regulated by state security and maintained by lavish state expenditure.

Private property is no less subject to decay, if a capitalist enterprise becomes unprofitable in monetary terms it is allowed to collapse (abandoned factories - amusement parks). Under socialism so long as something maintains a social utility there exists both incentive and capability to keep it running. Private property may be socially useful, desirable or in fact necessary however in the event of unprofitability it must be allowed rot. For example we have an over-abundance of housing in Ireland, yet homelessness remains a problem ect.

Except the basic incentive to innovate. If a socialist factory is busily producing Trabants, what happens when someone comes along with a new design for a better, safer, more fuel efficient, and more comfortable car? The comrades gather around, study the plans, and realise that implementing them will require new machinery, new sources of raw materials, retraining for every worker, and a completely redesigned work process. Ultimately, it would always be too much trouble to change to a new system to produce a new car—and so everybody would vote to go back to doing what they did before. Stagnation would become entrenched and institutionalized.

The incentive to innovate cannot be reduced to a monetary matter. The idea that monetary incentives are a pre-eminent human motivation is an outgrowth of a commodity-producing society rather than a universal of human nature. It is an idea particularly prevalent in Western economic ideology, but its parochial nature even within the capitalist world is evident when we consider the success of Japanese industry, where company loyalty rather than individual incentive is to the fore. One need only think of non-mercantile professions to see the importance that can attach to other criteria of success,—glory for the soldier, relief of suffering for the nurse, esteem for the scholar, fame for the actor—to realise there can be rewards every bit as potent as money. - Paul Cockshott

Permabear · 21-07-2009 9:44am

This post has been deleted.

Soldie · 21-07-2009 10:17am

I take my hat off to donegalfella for having the patience to keep his composure in this debate, when it seems that both synd and Akrasia are blatantly engaging in intellectual dishonesty.

Synd, your interpretation of history and reality is utterly absurd - particularly your defence of the USSR and China. In Mao: The Unknown Story, Jung Chang and Jon Halliday estimate that Mao was responsible for over 70 million deaths during peace time. Both Lenin and Stalin are responsible for many millions of deaths, too. The Soviet Union was a catastrophe, and any attempt to prove otherwise is just pathetic, to be quite honest. An uncle of mine spent some time in Moscow in the early 80s, and one thing he noticed was the throngs of people queuing outside shops, each of which had a chronic shortage of goods - I bet the General Secretary wishes he had his super-computer back then.

synd wrote: »

Real capital is built upon expropriated surplus value. In reality all capital is social, workers through socializing capital are merely re-appropriating stolen labor value. The retention of private property by the bourgeoisie is a form of institutionalized theft. Men with guns are coming to get you LOL

Can you explain how surplus value is 'expropriated' if workers work on a voluntary basis? Also, can you explain what happens when a company is operating at a loss - are the workers obliged to reimburse their employer?

Akrasia, given that you think libertarianism would quickly descend into something like the Kowloon Walled City in Hong Kong - perhaps you should read up about Sir John James Cowperthwaite's tenure as financial secretary of Hong Kong. His policies were laissez-faire, and this resulted in Hong Kong overtaking overtaking the UK, and matching the US in GDP per capita. This is quite amazing, considering that Hong Kong is a tiny speck of land with negligible natural resources. His policies saw Hong Kong converted from a minor trading post into a major hub.

synd · 22-07-2009 3:47pm

rari sports cars, what happens then? "Consumer preference" neither calls goods into existence nor determines anything about their distribution.

Factory collectives would decide what to produce, then present the adequate information before the market who would consequently choose from the host of available options. The quantity of produce would be determined by consumption trends and direct order - with a given surplus produced to rectify potential shortages, that may be caused by over demand - drought, natural calamity ect. The given surplus in the event of product upgrade would be sold off at a discount - making room for enhancements.

Isn't this thread about "socialist anarchism"? Aren't Akrasia and others arguing against such centralization? What you're effectively proposing here is the standard model of statist socialism.

Levels of centralization are essential so far as particular projects are concerned, try to imagine how a de-centralized train network would run. Participatory centralization arises from the need to organize cross regional projects and does not entail a state, as far im aware the only anarchists that opt against such methods are primitivists.

No, I'm arguing, pace Mises and Hayek, that accurate, long-term planning is impossible in a non-market economy. This is not exactly a controversial assertion.

No, your arguing that socialism however it is defined must (by definition) be impossible, no different from the theistic notion that God must necessarily be omnipresent. Socialism seeks to plan to the extent that the available technology allows, no more, no less - any claims as to why this cannot occur stem from blatant superstition.

I think it's fair to say that companies from BMW to Gucci to Apple have dramatically cut back production in the current market. But a socialist producer would just go on guesstimating wildly in the darkness, wouldn't he?

No, when demand for a particular utility stops so does immediate production. It is capitalism which in producing on future expectation invariably attempts to make speculative profits through excess production.

In fact, they wouldn't exist in the first place if not for the research and development machinations of these evil corporations.

And capitalism would not exist had industrial development not been fueled by slavery, imperialism and genocide - it is possible to advocate alternative use of productive facilities while not agreeing with the means used to construct them.

Drug companies (such as Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.) have also used profits in the West to enable them to licence essential drugs (such as the AIDS treatment Reyataz) for free to generic drug manufacturers in the Third World.

The re-distributed surplus value (charity) is but a portion of what is expropriated from the third world. "The relationship of these global corporations with the poorer countries had long been an exploiting one . Whereas U.S. corporations in Europe between 1950 and 1965 invested $8.1 billion and made $5.5 billion in profits, in Latin America they invested $3.8 billion and made $11.2 billion in profits, and in Africa they invested $5.2 billion and made $14.3 bullion in profits." [Howard Zinn, A People's History of the United States, p. 556. The situation was well articulated by Bradford in the 80s "Despite the popular Western image of the Third World as a bottomless begging bowl, it today gives more to the industrialised world than it takes. Inflows of official 'aid' and private loans and investments are exceeded by outflows in the form of repatriated profits, interest payments, and private capital sent abroad by Third World Elites." George Bradford, Woman's Freedom: Key to the Population Question, p. 77. Needless to say that if the developing world re-appropriated its capital, placed it under public control and retained the full value of their productive capacities they would be in much better situation than they are currently (living on handouts).

The initial point stands - market price is not an adequate expression of value, nor is it sufficient for gauging production. The fact that a painting may cost 6 million euro does not mean that it is in high demand - it means that some people due to their huge incomes can purchase it at what may be (from their relative position) a reasonably low cost. The worlds majority may highly value basic necessities, but this is not conveyed considering they may have insufficient income to express real demand - priority in production is thus geared towards luxury goods. Capitalism can be correctly described as an irrational and inefficient system when the terms are divorced from bourgeoisie terminology, which necessarily equate them with profit maximization.

Maybe you always observe, conceptualize, and plan before acting, but empirical evidence from the broader study of human action would suggest that others are not so vigilant, prudent, and regimented.

Lacking vigilance or regimentation does not entail absence of planned action. Every human engages in co-ordination before acting, this is a fact - the human process of observation, conceptualization, and action is essential if you are to even carry out the most basic of tasks. Of course, some people do not have the sufficient mental capacities required and therefore plan and co-ordinate themselves to a lesser extent. Ultimately spontaneity cannot be said to exist, beyond sub atomic particles and even if it did exist in the ream of human action you would be presented with a serious ideological problem in that spontaneity in the truest sense negates self control - a pre-requisit to self determination ie freedom.

Can you please provide links to these statistics?

http://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/government/economics/statistics/ind-out.htm

The Russian communist party averages with roughly a third of the vote in any given election. In the Russian parliamentary elections of 2007, the Communist Party of the Russian Federation received 11.6 percent of the vote. Are you going to argue now that 11.6 percent is "roughly a third." No. It's roughly a third of a third.

In 1995 24%. In 1996 32%. In 2000 29%. In 2005 27%, 2008 17.72% ect. Given the corruption in the Russian voting system the actual votes are probably higher, however even as they stand they clearly indicate strong support. Just to put this into perspective in case you are unable to understand the implications - consider the fact that fine gael got 27.3 in the last election. I would expect to see a large rise in left wing ideology of all descriptions over the coming years, esp in the industrialized urban centers.

The existence of isolated workers' cooperatives embedded in liberal market economies does not prove that "socialist anarchism ... exists and functions perfectly well." We're not discussing a capitalist economy that contains a few communes or collective enterprises here and there—we're talking about a hypothetical socialist anarchist economy that has replaced the liberal capitalist order in toto.

Anarchist Catalonia was not an isolated workers Co-op nor are the Zapatista municipalities (which exist today). Moreover the argument that a particular form of social organization is unifiable because it has not historically existed for a specified length of time is fallacious - if success was defined in terms of duration then every system to have ever existed qualifies as a failure. The criteria for success with regards an economy should be how well it meets the stated material needs of its adherents - a criteria where existing capitalism fails.

This is just inflammatory Marxist rhetoric. A commercial airline pilot receives a salary and benefits as compensation for his work, per the contract he signed when he took up employment. The airplane he flies belongs to his employer. If he attempts to re appropriate stolen labour value steal the plane, he is committing theft, pure and simple. Only someone blinded by collectivist ideology could see it any other way.

Contract is exploitative unless it ensures that labor power is remunerated with the full value of its process. If a factory worker on average creates 10/value and is payed 5 then 5 in surplus value has been expropriated. The upper class are in a position to ascertain consent on exploitative contracts in that they monopolize the means of subsistence and ensure a large section of labor remains unemployed. Capital is social so far as it was built via stolen surplus value - anyone who conceptualizes it otherwise is a proponent of bourgeoisie rule. The re-appropriation of stolen value is not theft - the upper class process of accumulation is theft.

It's obvious from what you've written here that you're not satisfied merely with the opportunity to practice some kind of socialist anarchism. What you really want is to stop anyone who disagrees with you from practicing any form of production based on private property. And your final rejoinder above shows your intent to put your rivals out of business by brute force, or even murder, if necessary. This is not a regime that anyone with any respect for life could tolerate.

No, we want freedom from bourgeoisie rule, which necessarily entails the socialization of property and the negation of liberal hegemony in so far as it serves as the ideological basis for upper class oppression. The degree of violence required during revolution will depend on the level of force used by the wretched bourgeoisie in their despicable attempts to retain control over society.

Now you are really grasping at straws.

Better than grasping at thin air like yourself DF.

The gardener functions within the confines of a regulated capitalist state. He was educated through public schools, utilized public roads to travel, avails of public health-care and drives a taxed van]Gardeners do not require a particularly high level of education. Gardening skills are not even taught in schools. Nor are public roads, public health-care, or the existence of motor tax intrinsic to the profession of gardening.

The gardener would not be equipped with the basic skills required to even learn his trade had he not received an education. Furthermore, most trades are taught through FAS, gardening-landscaping generally requires time in third level, which is obviously public. As for roads, everyone requires them to travel to and from work - and taxation goes into maintenance of public infrastructure - such as FAS ect.

Can we have an example of one of these "more liberalized" markets that is tending towards stagnation and poverty?

Somalia is the most liberalized economy I can think of at the moment - virtually no gov interference in the market, no taxation, no state infrastructure and predicated upon private property. As for the development of highly regulated economies - take the US as an example

And there were no farmers' markets before the advent of the Commmon Agricultural Policy?

Ireland did not export enough food to feed the whole of Italy prior to the implementation of such state subsidies ect.

Mr. Cockshott is living in la-la-land. Ask soldiers to work for free, and see how many glory-hunters flock into the army. Tell Irish nurses that they should be happy that they get to relieve suffering, and that they should quit their moaning about pension and income levies. Let me know what response you get.

No one is asking anyone to work for free, in fact under socialism the majority of people would receive a higher wage than they do under the current system. What we propose is the removal of income differentials - which, as in the case of Cuban doctors proves that occupational incentive is not predicated upon relative differentials, if this where the case then there would be a shortage of doctors in Cuba - when in reality it is among the most popular occupations.

I've worked in academia, by the way. I've witnessed first-hand the bitter and vituperative rows that erupt among academics over issues of remuneration and other perquisites. And I can tell you that scholars value "esteem" only because academic renown leads to better-compensated positions at more prestigious (i.e., wealthier) universities.

Ask the average science professor if he would remain in academia in the event of level wages, you overlook just how phycologically invested many people are in there work. Do you seriously think Einsteins interest in science was peripheral to his interest in money ?. Im sure the average 17 year old football supporter would delight in the notion of playing football as a profession, even in the event of low wage. That said I have no doubt vituperative rows over money frequently break out over in the smelly economics dept.

As for the actor who aspires to fame alone—more rubbish. There's a reason for the phrase "fame and fortune." Few people who become famous remain penniless.

Only a grubby libertarian blinded by the greed his ideology is designed to protect would think people who produce art do so primarily for money.

Permabear · 25-07-2009 3:44am

This post has been deleted.

thomasmi · 25-07-2009 4:03am

daniel oconnell can explain

thomasmi · 25-07-2009 4:17am

on socialism-anarchism
daniel o connell can explain

synd · 27-07-2009 9:18pm

There isn't much I can add in response to synd's post without repeating myself. So just a few brief points:

Yes you'v been refuted on most every argument you have provided thus-far, from your historical distortions on the Swedish economy to your nonsensical arguments that economic planning is impossible. So, you have been reduced to making issue of increasingly peripheral subjects - given your initial objective of ''refuting socialist theory'' using regurgitated Austrian claptrap has ''clearly'' backfired.

Yes, indeed, Fine Gael got 27.3 percent of the vote in the 2007 general election. But in the Russian parliamentary elections held later that same year, the Communist Party received 11.6 percent of the vote.

Yes and ''despite rampant corruption'', acquired 17.8% in the 2008 presidential, an indicator for the coming parliamentary elections.

And yet you persist in claiming that the level of support for the Communist Party in Russia is somehow analogous to the level of support for Fine Gael in Ireland?

The implication was that Finna Fails support was high pre-recession, now (from what we can tell) they have lost their majority support. The Russian CP being the second largest party in the nation, under circumstances of severe economic decline could potentially see a huge surge. Even at 11%, the CP in proportion to the population are larger than Irish Labor - who now are likely to see a massive increase.http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE53K2E620090421?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews

Mowing lawns does not require a third-level degree.

You don't need to be a qualified chef to cook beens either.

Why don't you offer Cristiano Ronaldo €300 a week to play professional football for the sheer delight of it all. See how successful you are in luring him away from his current €250,000-a-week deal with Real Madrid.

Im sure there are plenty of 17yr olds who would gladly accept the average industrial wage in order to play professional football.

ho make fiery speeches on behalf of the proletariat, and then go home to enjoy a nice glass of claret in one of three million-dollar homes.

A combination of Anecdotal evidence and Adhom doesn't strengthen your position, it illustrates your compulsive urge to utilize cheap rhetoric due to your inability to construct a substantial argument. Your having witnessed rows over pay at some time in your life means absolutely nothing.

We should be grateful, then, that artists such as Shakespeare, Beethoven, Dickens, and Turner were anything but grubby profiteers. It's quite clea

Again - even if some artists may have been primarily motivated by profit this does not mean that profit is the primary motivation of all artists ect. Although some people will take whatever profit their art is able to generate on completion, it is a fallacy to assert that large profits where the initial motivation behind taking up art as an occupation.

Permabear · 27-07-2009 11:55pm

This post has been deleted.

synd · 28-07-2009 6:36pm

Really? Have you been reading the same thread I have?

Yes, you have failed to illustrate how the capitalist market is the most efficient mode of social organization - all attempts thus far to show libertarianism in practice have been based upon historical distortions. You have failed to show how a socialist economy would be incapable of meeting consumer demand and social need when provided with theoretical and empirical examples.

They acquired this level of support in an election with four candidates. The parliamentary returns from the 1990s to present are a much better indicator of the Communists' waning support.

Time will tell

By the way, before you get too carried away in your endorsements, I hope you realise that the modern Communist Party supports private property, markets, and multiparty democr

No different to the main socialist parties in the west, the Irish SP do not openly advocate the socialization of all property or the de-construction of the electoral system. Nationalization according to their present position - would be confined to main industries. It could be argued that this approach exists to gain wider mainstream support. In any case - I don't endorse this course of action, nor do I support the model either organization want to build.

Election results from my perspective give an indication as to what general ideological current is prevailing at any given point in time. For example, Labor while a liberal party in many respects - are conceptualized by the general public as being left wing. Therefore an increase in Labors support marks a general shift to the left in popular mentality.

They got 11 percent. ELEVEN PERCENT. Less than HALF what they got in 1999. Time to face reality, synd. Nine out of ten cats don't prefer communism.

You conveniently ignore the fact that the communist party where on 11% in the Duma elections of 1993 - this increased to 24.3 by 1999 before again declining. http://www.russiavotes.org/duma/duma_elections_93-03.phpThere is absolutely no reason to think especially under conditions of global recession that the very same surge will not occur again.

Are there any straws left for you to grasp at?

Your current obsession with the Russian elections is a clear attempt to divert attention from your inability to defend Austrian economic theory on the matter of economic planning.

I'm sure Sky Sports can't wait to snap up the broadcast rights for this one. :rolleyes: Who do you think wants to watch desultory teenagers kicking a ball around for the average industrial wage?

I don't suppose you have ever heard of the GAA ?

Are you denying that Terry Eagleton, Noam Chomsky, and other such academics have become wealthy and famous through advocating socialism? Noam Chomsky makes around $15,000 plus expenses for a single hour-long speech. What do you have to say about that?

Supposing Chomsky was a neo-liberal hypocrite - It would not detract whatsoever from the quality of his research.

Yes, there are so many artists working away in the world without any desire whatsoever to make it big and become ridiculously wealthy...

True, only something a libertarian would even think of denying.

Akrasia · 31-07-2009 8:53pm

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No he doesn't. Perhaps that's what he charges for wealthy foundations or institutions, but he regularly speaks at community groups and for societies at universities, I doubt they all pay him 15k an hour. I was involved in a group who were bringing in speakers from around the world, and most of the socialists did it for free if they were available (we paid their expenses obviously)

Yes, there are so many artists working away in the world without any desire whatsoever to make it big and become ridiculously wealthy....

The question is not whether they desire wealth, the question is would they still perform if they were just making a living from it, and tbh, any artist worth anything would still be an artist even without any prospects of fortune

pagancornflake · 09-08-2009 2:32am

Comon DF, stick it to da man. I believe in you.

Joycey · 22-08-2009 4:17pm

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

My god, your actually nuts. I see it clearly now. Do you honestly believe that all artists (or even most), the world over, actually produce purely in order that they be materially rewarded for their efforts?

Your life must be so empty.

A Primal Nut · 22-08-2009 8:46pm

Soldie wrote: »

I take my hat off to donegalfella for having the patience to keep his composure in this debate, when it seems that both synd and Akrasia are blatantly engaging in intellectual dishonesty.

Synd, your interpretation of history and reality is utterly absurd - particularly your defence of the USSR and China. In Mao: The Unknown Story, Jung Chang and Jon Halliday estimate that Mao was responsible for over 70 million deaths during peace time. Both Lenin and Stalin are responsible for many millions of deaths, too. The Soviet Union was a catastrophe, and any attempt to prove otherwise is just pathetic, to be quite honest. An uncle of mine spent some time in Moscow in the early 80s, and one thing he noticed was the throngs of people queuing outside shops, each of which had a chronic shortage of goods - I bet the General Secretary wishes he had his super-computer back then.

Also, in Poland, they were one of the biggest coal producers in the world yet people had to queue for hours to get some of it, as if it was a rare commodity. Great "redistribution of wealth" there! There were many examples of this in the old USSR!

The soviet union was about finding as many ways as possible to treat their own people like ****, in the name of some rediculous ideal where only the state mattered.

Incidentally, how would would Socialist Anarchism work? Socialism needs a state to implement it. After all someone has to make sure everyone earns the same amount, gets free health and education; and choose how resources are distributed. An anarchist society would clearly decend into free market capitalism very quickly.

Joycey · 24-08-2009 5:53pm

Also, in Poland, they were one of the biggest coal producers in the world yet people had to queue for hours to get some of it, as if it was a rare commodity. Great "redistribution of wealth" there! There were many examples of this in the old USSR!

Impeccable logic I must say. Your argument about problems of inequality in the distribution of resources being exacerbated by attempts to distribute more equally is certainly borne out by the fact that under capitalist systems in Botswana and the Congo there are more diamond rings per capita than anywhere else in the world :rolleyes:

A Primal Nut wrote: »

Incidentally, how would would Socialist Anarchism work? Socialism needs a state to implement it.

I suggest you read the thread. Synd is defending a more traditional form of socialism AFAICS

Soldie · 25-08-2009 2:35am

Joycey wrote: »

Impeccable logic I must say. Your argument about problems of inequality in the distribution of resources being exacerbated by attempts to distribute more equally is certainly borne out by the fact that under capitalist systems in Botswana and the Congo there are more diamond rings per capita than anywhere else in the world :rolleyes:

This paragraph makes absolutely no sense.

I suggest you read the thread. Synd is defending a more traditional form of socialism AFAICS

I've read the thread and all Synd is doing is distorting history to fit his agenda. Not much defending going on, really.

Joycey · 25-08-2009 7:00pm

Soldie wrote: »

This paragraph makes absolutely no sense.

Its a bit convoluted but i think it makes sense.

I've read the thread and all Synd is doing is distorting history to fit his agenda. Not much defending going on, really.

Right.

How would you know hes distorting history to fit his agenda unless you knew what his agenda was?

How would you know what his agenda was unless you spoke to him in person or read his writing in this thread?

Assuming you read it in this thread then that would mean hes doing something other than simply distorting history.

-> the above quote is a reduction of reality (one might even say a "distortion of history") to suit your own agenda and is factually inaccurate.

Akrasia · 26-08-2009 9:01pm

Soldie wrote: »

This paragraph makes absolutely no sense.

It does make sense, he was saying that a capitalist has no leg to stand on to lecture socialists about unequal distribution of resources.

Permabear · 26-08-2009 10:08pm

This post has been deleted.

synd · 27-08-2009 5:43pm

Snide remarks and absolutely no substantial critique - all that can be expected of intellectually bankrupt neo-liberals.

As for my supposed ''distortions'' of history, I have merely given a factual account in conjunction with a socialist interpriation. Historical fact has different interpriations, subjective conceptualization of history is to a large extent dependent on ones class ideology. D/F for instance being a liberal is a proponent of bourgeoisie class rule - so for instance, he understands the French/American revolutions as being ''good'' considering they entailed in part the destruction of feudalism and facilitated the rise of capitalism. D/F must however perceive revolution against liberal/capitalist rule (which he supports) as being evil ect.

There exists historical fact, but how we choose to portray that fact is inescapable from our political ideology. Needless to say proponents of feudalism during the late 1700s would have considered the recorded accounts of liberal historians ''distortions of history'' - Donegalfella is nothing more than an agent of upper class ideology who blinded by infantile delusions of ''objectivity'' fails to understand his position in the history of class struggle.

Furthermore - liberalism as I have clearly shown is predicated upon a gross distortion of economic history. Central to its theme rests the notion that free markets invariably result in high productivity/rising living standards - it then proposes that this free market of the past is the basis of contemporary success so far as the developed world is concerned. The logical continuation of this trail is that markets ought to be liberalized so as to increase general living standards. However, as I have repeatedly shown the developed world with its conjoint affluence developed under direct conditions of imperialist accumulation and high state regulation. This undermines the central thesis of the liberal pathology and actually de-constructs the entire liberal padagram

Akrasia put it correctly - they no longer have a leg to stand on, not least since left academia de-constructed the tenants of their political and economic theories with surgical precision. Globally neo-liberalism is undergoing an idealogical/political/economic crisis - liberal economists are becoming overnight Keynesian's in droves. BTW - Don't bother seeking refuge in cultism - denouncing your neo-liberal mates as not having adhered to the one true faith (austrian economics). Austrian theorists are just as neo-liberal as the ''Chicago boys'' given their promotion of ''free markets'' is frequently predicated upon the observed fruits of the corporate state.

Soldie · 27-08-2009 5:53pm

I actually laughed out loud, no joke. You sound like the former Iraqi information minister, Synd.

synd · 27-08-2009 6:24pm

Do you always use laughter as a defense mechanism ? Do you seriously think anyone looking at this thread reads your compulsive reversion to sarcastic/snide remarks as anything other than a pathetic attempt to hide your intellectual inability to defend your political position via substantial argument ?

Permabear · 28-08-2009 12:43am

This post has been deleted.

synd · 28-08-2009 3:32am

You come out with statements like this, and then you wonder why your views aren't taken seriously?

Do you have amnesia or are you just trying to project a false image of success ? do you need me to remind you that you have clearly lost this debate ? Do you seriously think you can hide the fact that your entire argument has been smashed by placing a smug question at the end of the thread in the hope that some random observer will take it as an indication of success ?

The only one not being taken seriously here is you, anyone who has actually been following this thread will find (nothing) but systematic annihilation of your libertarian propaganda. You have been refuted on virtually every argument you have presented - and I would urge anyone looking at this thread to read the prior comments - which D/F is sincerely hoping you wont do, contrary to what he may say in his next post

Permabear · 28-08-2009 12:36pm

This post has been deleted.

Soldie · 28-08-2009 6:53pm

It's quite amazing that, in spite of the many millions of deaths communism is responsible for, there is no shortage of naïve armchair-communist Westerners who will rant and rave about how great communism is. Most of these pseudo-communists tend to accept that the Soviet Union and The Great Leap Forward were a disaster, but Synd goes a step further by actually trying to defend the indefensible. He's quite happy to sign off his last few posts with a Maoist propaganda image, with the text saying that "We'll destroy old world and build new.", in reference to The Great Leap Forward which was responsible for well over 70 million deaths. May I ask if you've ever been to any (former) communist countries, Synd? I have, and it's not pretty. Consider the old town in Odessa, for example, it's literally untouched since the Russian Revolution - efficient allocation of resources I think not. Here are a few holiday snaps I took from a trip to a former East Bloc country: click, click and click. The apartments in the last picture are selling for pretty cheap if you want to practice what you preach. It's all well and good reading Terry Eagleton's (yeah, that guy who owns several houses) latest Marxist critique when you're several thousand kilometres away from these paradises you speak of. When are you planning to move to Cuba?

Synd likes to convince himself that he's won arguments - claiming that he's 'systematically annihilated' every point, but if you look beyond the cheap rhetoric and propaganda pictures, you'll find he hasn't answered much at all. He merely states his own opinion as though it's fact, offering little other than ideologically biased YouTube videos to back it up. He constantly rattles on about surplus value being "expropriated" from workers, but when asked how this can be the case if workers work on voluntary basis, he casually ignores the question. When asked if workers will reimburse the company they work for if said company is operating at a loss, he ignores this too. Synd has even claimed that his own political system will feature this "expropriation" of surplus value - but that the amount "expropriated" will be democratically decided - in other words your freedom lies in the hands of other people - tyranny of the majority and all that. Ironic, isn't it?

Needless to say Synd will reply with another incoherent post complete with patronising smilies, where he claims that capitalism is responsible for an equal number of deaths, as he references bastions of free-market capitalism such as The Congo. :rolleyes:

I'm quite happy that both myself, donegalfella and others have picked enough holes in the anarcho-socialist theory for the neutral reader to see. You can claim you've won the argument all you like, Synd, but you're not even fooling yourself.

Met.ie wrote:

Rather windy this evening with bright or sunny periods and showers. Some of the showers heavy and prolonged in places, with a risk of thunder.

The computer responsible for this vague statement is the same one that Synd wants to be responsible for planning out an entire economy. Need I say more?

synd · 28-08-2009 9:51pm

It's quite amazing that, in spite of the many millions of deaths communism is responsible for, there is no shortage of naïve armchair-communist Westerners who will rant and rave about how great communism is.

First of all I have never denied that socialist revolutions against feudal oligarchies have entailed causalities, or that people have not died or been killed under socialist regimes. However deaths caused during wars against the ruling class are not a consequence of ''communism'' they are a result of the upper class's attempt to retain control over society by force. My support for the proletarian revolution against tzarist feudalism/liberalism aside - where have I ever expressed approval of the established soviet union ?

I have merely provided the economic track record in response to claims that liberalized economies are necessarily more productive and entail higher living standards. I recognize fully that a socialist movement is entirely susceptible to corruption. However the form of socialism I advocate necessarily entails the immediate implimentation of direct democracy - among the first measures taken by the Bolshevik regime where the subjugation of the soviets to the central command of the party, the dissolution of the workers councils ect.

Essentially, your favored mode of capitalist organization is very similar to the Bolshevik structure - although presumably on a smaller scale. You propose a board of directors in place of a politburo - a manager in place of a political officer and a ''private police force'' in place of the KGB. State Capitalism - the natural extension of your primitivist market fantasy, is synonymous with imperialism given the requirement for ever expanding accumulation of surplus.

Most of these pseudo-communists tend to accept that the Soviet Union and The Great Leap Forward were a disaster, but Synd goes a step further by actually trying to defend the indefensible.

From a previous post - where your historical distortions on the USSR where exposed

Did the USSR fail ? Well lets look at the facts. The liberal assertion that the USSR was a failure is predicated upon its being compared economically with the USA or Europe within a given time frame - a ridiculous comparison in that that these areas had been developed prior - you would have to go back about 800 years before both economies where alike. The rational comparison would be to look at nations that were similar to the soviet states in 1910 and compare their level of development in 1990. So we could compare Russia and Brazil or Bulgaria and Guatemala ect. Brazil for example should be a wealthy nation given its vast natural resources - peace ect (Russia being destroyed by world wars). Brazil is actually better equipped to develop than Russia ever was. Theirs a reason no-one undertakes the above comparison - because the result exposes liberal sophistry.

For Brazil about 5-10% of the population enjoy a high living standard, however the remaining 80% live in conditions comparable with central Africa. For the vast majority of Brazilians Soviet Russia would have looked like heaven. In fact when you look at the rate of industrial development within the USSR - it surpasses that of the developed western world. Living standards shot up from around 1917 - 1950 in terms of average income. The economy stagnated around the mid 60s until its collapse. Now if we compare living standards from the last period of the soviet regime - to the period of economic liberalization we see something very interesting, massive reduction in living standards and an increase in poverty levels. UNICEF documented half a million additional deaths a year in Russia alone due to the implementation of capitalist reform, or more accurately the removal of social supports and price controls. In the Czech Rep poverty went from 5.7% in 1989 to 18.2% in 1992. In Poland during the same period from 20% -40%. The votes retained by the eastern European communist parties aren't hard to explain at all in light of the facts. Some months ago Moldova voted the communist party back into power. Now its often thrown around by misinformed liberals that this is due to the ''youth vote'' - who had no experience of soviet misery. The truth is actually the opposite - the majority of communist party voters are the elderly. So did the USSR fail ? - well the USSR had internal problems - social repression, difficulty with adequate production esp in the form of consumer goods ect. However its clear that it resulted in a higher standard of living than economic liberalism would have provided within the given time span.

He's quite happy to sign off his last few posts with a Maoist propaganda image, with the text saying that "We'll destroy old world and build new.", in reference to The Great Leap Forward which was responsible for well over 70 million deaths.

I never claimed the great leap forward to be anything other than an economic disaster caused by the neglect of agriculatural production, what I made clear was that the capitalist price mechanism has been responsible for much more severe famines than that of the great leap forward. Additionally scholarly estimates on famine casualties range from 18 million to about 30 million (Gao). Incidentally, the poster is from the cultural revolution - not the great leap forward.

From a previous post - where this topic was addressed

''China in the late 1940s began to institute rural public health and educational programs, as well as other programs oriented towards the mass of the population. India played the game by our rules. It didn’t do any of this and there are consequences, for example, in mortality rates. These started to decline sharply in China from around 1950 until 1979. Then they stopped declining and started going up slightly. That was the period of the reforms. During the totalitarian period, from 1950 to about 1979, mortality rates declined. They declined in India, too, but much more slowly than in China up to 1979. Sen then says, suppose you measure the number of extra deaths in India resulting annually from not carrying out these Maoist-style programs or others for the benefit of the population, what you would call reforms if the term wasn’t so ideological. He estimates close to four million extra deaths every year in India, which means that, as he puts it, every eight years in India the number of skeletons in the closet is the same as in China’s moment of shame, the famine. If you look at the whole period, it’s about 100 million extra deaths in India alone after the democratic capitalist period enters.'' So just in case you try to ignore the point - according to the historian Amartya Sen (who lived through the famine) enough food was being produced in Bengal, however people could not afford it and starved as a consequence. This could have been averted through state re-distribution, however this clearly refutes your assertion that the capitalist market rationally allocates resources - or is responsible for less death than any given centralized command economy.

Chomsky articulates therefore, that India alone under a democratic capitalist system has during one famine seen excess of the total 100 million deaths attributed to global communism by liberal propagandists.

In relation to your despicable neo-liberal attempts to label Maoist China an ''economic failure'' a wealth of historical research illustrates sizable progress in terms of overall living standards relative to the prior period. ''It was due to this revolution that the average life expectancy of the majority Chinese rose from 35 in 1949 to 63 by 1975 (Bergaglio 2006) in a space of less than 30 years.'' Gao.

May I ask if you've ever been to any (former) communist countries, Synd? I have, and it's not pretty. Consider the old town in Odessa, for example, it's literally untouched since the Russian Revolution - efficient allocation of resources I think not. Here are a few holiday snaps I took from a trip to a former East Bloc country:

Do you seriously think posting pictures of soviet flat complexes proves anything, they look similar to the ballymun flats until recent renovation. I have already provided data showing the massive rise in living standards seen under the soviet system - and the subsequent decrease following liberalization/removal of price controls. One hilarious trait of librtards when badmouthing the USSR is the recurrent assertion that (people had to que for food) the obvious fact (evident to anyone competent in the field of economic history) being that prior to the USSRs establishment - there was no food to que for.

You have been refuted on your two fundamental assertions

1. Soviet development saw massive increases in living standards compared to the prior feudal mode, and developed at a much faster rate.

2. Soviet development in terms of increased living standards/technological advancement surpassed economically comparable developing nations working on the liberal capitalist model.

The rational comparison would be to look at nations that were similar to the soviet states in 1910 and compare their level of development in 1990. So we could compare Russia and Brazil or Bulgaria and Guatemala ect. Brazil for example should be a wealthy nation given its vast natural resources - peace ect (Russia being destroyed by world wars). Brazil is actually better equipped to develop than Russia ever was. Theirs a reason no-one undertakes the above comparison - because the result exposes liberal sophistry.

For Brazil about 5-10% of the population enjoy a high living standard, however the remaining 80% live in conditions comparable with central Africa. For the vast majority of Brazilians Soviet Russia would have looked like heaven. In fact when you look at the rate of industrial development within the USSR - it surpasses that of the developed western world. Living standards shot up from around 1917 - 1950 in terms of average income.

When are you planning to move to Cuba?

Around the same time you move to India, Somalia or Hati.

Synd likes to convince himself that he's won arguments - claiming that he's 'systematically annihilated' every point, but if you look beyond the cheap rhetoric and propaganda pictures, you'll find he hasn't answered much at all.

Actually, my posts have been anything but cheap rhetoric - rather a substantial amount of historical data used to portray my general point. It is you that relies entirely on worn out clinches - soudbites and reganite catchphrases.

He merely states his own opinion as though it's fact, offering little other than ideologically biased YouTube videos to back it up.

No actually all the historical data provided is quoted and sourced. As anyone looking can clearly see - feel free to check the sources.

He constantly rattles on about surplus value being "expropriated" from workers, but when asked how this can be the case if workers work on voluntary basis, he casually ignores the question.

No, this was addressed - voluntary transactions within a given social order are just that. The worker has the option of what boss to subordinate himself before, however so long as capitalism exists the working class will not be afforded the choice of self directed labor as a right.

When asked if workers will reimburse the company they work for if said company is operating at a loss, he ignores this too.

Companies operating at a loss are functioning on savings - ie. they are able to continue production by utilizing pre-accumulated surplus value. Moreover, the continuation of production fulled by what was already expropriated is the basis for continued expropriation.

Synd has even claimed that his own political system will feature this "expropriation" of surplus value - but that the amount "expropriated" will be democratically decided - in other words your freedom lies in the hands of other people - tyranny of the majority and all that. Ironic, isn't it?

So far as collective decision making is concerned only two possibilities exist -

Democracy

1. Every participant in allowed an equal say so far as the maintenance/management of collective property is concerned

Oligarchy

2. An elite minority are entitled to manage everyone else's affairs.

Undoubtedly I consider the first option fairer. You as a liberal you invariably believe that those who own property should be allowed to manage the affairs of those who require its use . You essentially denounce (the tyranny of the majority) in order to advocate its only logical alternative (the tyranny of the minority). Naturally liberals consider the later more just - the question is what will ordinary people choose between when given the opportunity ?

Needless to say Synd will reply with another incoherent post complete with patronising smilies, where he claims that capitalism is responsible for an equal number of deaths,

Capitalism is not responsible for an equal number of deaths - its responsible for far more, read the above post. Not to take into account the deaths required to fuel industrial development ie. colonial genocide/slavery ect.

as he references bastions of free-market capitalism such as The Congo. :rolleyes:

No actually, Somalia was the example I gave. A society predicated largely upon private property, with a market free from all state regulations. It would appear closer to your depiction of laissez-faire than US for instance (which developed via huge state regulation, protectionisim ect). Actually, while were on the subject would you be so kind as to provide me with an example of a successful free market economy ?

I'm quite happy that both myself, donegalfella and others have picked enough holes in the anarcho-socialist theory for the neutral reader to see.

There you go feigning confidence again. The neutral reader will find nothing but your arguments being de-constructed, which Is why I sincerely urge readers to read over the entire debate (it pains me to call it that) - walkover would be a better word

The computer responsible for this vague statement is the same one that Synd wants to be responsible for planning out an entire economy. Need I say more?

Another misrepresentation, I never suggested the entire economy be centrally planned via IT, although I advocate the greater incorporation of technology in observing consumer trends (something being done under the current system with increasing success).

silverharp · 30-08-2009 12:12pm

Synd , I think its fair enough to say the USSR should not be compared to Japan etc. , but then you shouldnt go on to try to compare it to countries where you think it has performed better. No 2 countries are on the the same trajectory, you would have to argue that the USSR achieved the best/very good outome in general terms becasue of Communism and secondly you would have to argue that it was worth the price, in the same way that I wouldnt entertain argument for the benefits of the third Reich in the 1930's.
For the second reason alone it just doesnt stand up and on the first objectively the system was an ecoomic nonsense , the system couldnt do economic calculation.

as I happened to read this recently , enjoy an account of the USSR health system by an economist who worked for Gorbachev in the 80's. Now tell me that they were broadly getting things right and that they had the right mix of defence spending versus public goods?

What Soviet Medicine Teaches Us
Yuri N. Maltsev

In 1918, the Soviet Union became the first country to promise universal "cradle-to-grave" healthcare coverage, to be accomplished through the complete socialization of medicine. The "right to health" became a "constitutional right" of Soviet citizens.

The proclaimed advantages of this system were that it would "reduce costs" and eliminate the "waste" that stemmed from "unnecessary duplication and parallelism" — i.e., competition.

These goals were similar to the ones declared by Mr. Obama and Ms. Pelosi — attractive and humane goals of universal coverage and low costs. What's not to like?

The system had many decades to work, but widespread apathy and low quality of work paralyzed the healthcare system. In the depths of the socialist experiment, healthcare institutions in Russia were at least a hundred years behind the average US level. Moreover, the filth, odors, cats roaming the halls, drunken medical personnel, and absence of soap and cleaning supplies added to an overall impression of hopelessness and frustration that paralyzed the system. According to official Russian estimates, 78 percent of all AIDS victims in Russia contracted the virus through dirty needles or HIV-tainted blood in the state-run hospitals.

Irresponsibility, expressed by the popular Russian saying "They pretend they are paying us and we pretend we are working," resulted in appalling quality of service, widespread corruption, and extensive loss of life. My friend, a famous neurosurgeon in today's Russia, received a monthly salary of 150 rubles — one third of the average bus driver's salary.

In order to receive minimal attention by doctors and nursing personnel, patients had to pay bribes. I even witnessed a case of a "nonpaying" patient who died trying to reach a lavatory at the end of the long corridor after brain surgery. Anesthesia was usually "not available" for abortions or minor ear, nose, throat, and skin surgeries. This was used as a means of extortion by unscrupulous medical bureaucrats.

"Slavery certainly 'reduced costs' of labor, 'eliminated the waste' of bargaining for wages, and avoided 'unnecessary duplication and parallelism'."To improve the statistics concerning the numbers of people dying within the system, patients were routinely shoved out the door before taking their last breath.

Being a People's Deputy in the Moscow region from 1987 to 1989, I received many complaints about criminal negligence, bribes taken by medical apparatchiks, drunken ambulance crews, and food poisoning in hospitals and child-care facilities. I recall the case of a fourteen-year-old girl from my district who died of acute nephritis in a Moscow hospital. She died because a doctor decided that it was better to save "precious" X-ray film (imported by the Soviets for hard currency) instead of double-checking his diagnosis. These X-rays would have disproven his diagnosis of neuropathic pain.

Instead, the doctor treated the teenager with a heat compress, which killed her almost instantly. There was no legal remedy for the girl's parents and grandparents. By definition, a single-payer system cannot allow any such remedy. The girl's grandparents could not cope with this loss and they both died within six months. The doctor received no official reprimand.

Not surprisingly, government bureaucrats and Communist Party officials, as early as 1921 (three years after Lenin's socialization of medicine), realized that the egalitarian system of healthcare was good only for their personal interest as providers, managers, and rationers — but not as private users of the system.

So, as in all countries with socialized medicine, a two-tier system was created: one for the "gray masses" and the other, with a completely different level of service, for the bureaucrats and their intellectual servants. In the USSR, it was often the case that while workers and peasants were dying in the state hospitals, the medicine and equipment that could save their lives was sitting unused in the nomenklatura system.

At the end of the socialist experiment, the official infant-mortality rate in Russia was more than 2.5 times as high as in the United States and more than five times that of Japan. The rate of 24.5 deaths per 1,000 live births was questioned recently by several deputies to the Russian Parliament, who claim that it is seven times higher than in the United States. This would make the Russian death rate 55 compared to the US rate of 8.1 per 1,000 live births.

Having said that, I should make it clear that the United States has one of the highest rates of the industrialized world only because it counts all dead infants, including premature babies, which is where most of the fatalities occur.

Most countries do not count premature-infant deaths. Some don't count any deaths that occur in the first 72 hours. Some countries don't even count any deaths from the first two weeks of life. In Cuba, which boasts a very low infant-mortality rate, infants are only registered when they are several months old, thereby leaving out of the official statistics all infant deaths that take place within the first several months of life.

In the rural regions of Karakalpakia, Sakha, Chechnya, Kalmykia, and Ingushetia, the infant mortality rate is close to 100 per 1,000 births, putting these regions in the same category as Angola, Chad, and Bangladesh. Tens of thousands of infants fall victim to influenza every year, and the proportion of children dying from pneumonia and tuberculosis is on the increase. Rickets, caused by a lack of vitamin D, and unknown in the rest of the modern world, is killing many young people.

Uterine damage is widespread, thanks to the 7.3 abortions the average Russian woman undergoes during childbearing years. Keeping in mind that many women avoid abortions altogether, the 7.3 average means that many women have a dozen or more abortions in their lifetime.

Even today, according to the State Statistics Committee, the average life expectancy for Russian men is less than 59 years — 58 years and 11 months — while that for Russian women is 72 years. The combined figure is 65 years and three months.[1] By comparison, the average life span for men in the United States is 73 years and for women 79 years. In the United States, life expectancy at birth for the total population has reached an all-time American high of 77.5 years, up from 49.2 years just a century ago. The Russian life expectancy at birth is 12 years lower.[2]

After seventy years of socialism, 57 percent of all Russian hospitals did not have running hot water, and 36 percent of hospitals located in rural areas of Russia did not have water or sewage at all. Isn't it amazing that socialist government, while developing space exploration and sophisticated weapons, would completely ignore the basic human needs of its citizens?.....

synd · 30-08-2009 6:46pm

Synd , I think its fair enough to say the USSR should not be compared to Japan etc., but then you shouldnt go on to try to compare it to countries where you think it has performed better. No 2 countries are on the the same trajectory,

History offers no precise comparisons, however we can find reasonabaly close examples. While no two economies are on the same trajectory we can by degrees find substancially close correlations - and these should be used when seeking reasonable assessment. Brazil for instance due to its relatively advantageous position can hardly be said to be a unfair selection - still, soviet Russia outperforms it. The same can be said of Hungary when compared to Guatemala ect.

I think its fair enough to say the USSR should not be compared to Japan etc

Considering your a liberal, im just going to assume your sence of irony has gone out the window with your sense of reality. Your condemnation of alternative economic practice has been predicated almost entirely upon such erroneous comparisons nfant-mortality rate in Russia was more than 2.5 times as high as in the United States and more than five times that of Japan - Maltsev.

you would have to argue that the USSR achieved the best/very good outome in general terms becasue of Communism and secondly you would have to argue that it was worth the price, in the same way that I wouldnt entertain argument for the benefits of the third Reich in the 1930's.

First, its not like causation has not been established - the re-distribution of wealth and implimenation of social reform saw direct increase in living standards. Soviet organization was more efficient than the previous feudal mode therefore led to a higher circulation of produce among the general population. With regards the ''cost'' - I personally consider the transition from feudalism to state socialism a welcome one, granted soviet society was repressive however hardly more so than Tzarist russia. The price you refer to, presumably both world wars, the October revolution, the civil war, the terrors ect would act as obvious detrminets to any developing economy - which is why soviet development appears more impressive.

For the second reason alone it just doesnt stand up and on the first objectively the system was an ecoomic nonsense , the system couldnt do economic calculation.

It managed economic calculation to a far greater extent than the majority of developing capitalist nations of the same time period. The price mechanism clearly performed woefully in nations such as Brazil ect. The Soviet state was able to direct vital produce to where it was needed - thereby reducing the sort of poverty experienced in nations dependent on the capitalist price system, India being an example. The Bengal famine killing in excess of the 100 million you attribute to global ''communism''. Of course this manifestation of the price mechanism and its clear inability to rationally allocate resources could have been averted via recourse to state re-distribution. Personally however I do not consider the central planning of an entire economy viable, nor have I any doubt that the USSR stagnated with regards consumer goods.

as I happened to read this recently , enjoy an account of the USSR health system by an economist who worked for Gorbachev in the 80's. Now tell me that they were broadly getting things right and that they had the right mix of defence spending versus public goods?

Yes mises.org is full of such accounts. Just for further information, personal accounts from ex-soviet residents do not negate the wealth of research done on the soviet economy. Nor would I expect a senior fellow of the Ludwig von Mises Institute to provide anything other than propaganda. First, for an economist Maltsev makes the frequent mistake of comparing the soviet economy to the US economy - denouncing the former for its inability to match US levels. This comparison is nonsensical as I have explained numerous times. .By comparison, the average life span for men in the United States is 73 years and for women 79 years. In the United States, life expectancy at birth for the total population has reached an all-time American high of 77.5 years, up from 49.2 years just a century ago. The Russian life expectancy at birth is 12 years lower. - Maltsev. Life expectancy was lower in the USSR than the US, so what - relative to both the former mode of organization and economically comparable liberal societies the average calculated expectancy rose dramatically - from 44.4 in 1927 to 69.5 in 1989. Moreover, while Maltsev points out the difference in method with regards measurement infant mortality, he doesn't mention the fact that according to the methodology trends illustrate consistent decline from 80/per 1,000 in 1950 to around 10/per 1,000 in 1989. Similarly deaths due to all manner of disease dropped from 1950 -1987. The same general increase in life expectancy/literacy/infant mortality can be found in Maoist China.

In order to receive minimal attention by doctors and nursing personnel, patients had to pay bribes. I even witnessed a case of a "nonpaying" patient who died trying to reach a lavatory at the end of the long corridor after brain surgery. Anesthesia was usually "not available" for abortions or minor ear, nose, throat, and skin surgeries. This was used as a means of extortion by unscrupulous medical bureaucrats.

Nasty story - however It fails to account for the clear rise in soviet living standards. Right wingers seem to think the regurgitation of anecdotal ghost stories somehow negates the statistical track record - a trait of their general disdain for reality. Another interesting aspect of liberal methodology with regards propaganda, is to evaluate regional performance instead of calculating the overall average - for instance In the rural regions of Karakalpakia, Sakha, Chechnya, Kalmykia, and Ingushetia, the infant mortality rate is close to 100 per 1,000 births, putting these regions in the same category as Angola, Chad, and Bangladesh.- Maltsev. Needless to say an attempt to divert attention from the clear improvement seen when the (average) is derived. Cherry pick the worst regional stats in order to denounce the absolute increase in standards - its really quite incredible that you think you can project such blatantly propagandistic methodology and think people wont notice it.

These goals were similar to the ones declared by Mr. Obama and Ms. Pelosi — attractive and humane goals of universal coverage and low costs. What's not to like?

Yes, because the NHS is quite horrendous - I used to live under it and it was horrible, nurses with no teeth and unqualified quacks posing as doctors would inject us with HIV in madhouse of socialized evilness. Believe my personal account and whatever you do ignore the fact that the world health organization (a marxist front) ranks the US below virtually every socialized system in Europe.

silverharp · 30-08-2009 8:51pm

synd wrote: »

History offers no precise comparisons, however we can find reasonabaly close examples. While no two economies are on the same trajectory we can by degrees find substancially close correlations - and these should be used when seeking reasonable assessment. Brazil for instance due to its relatively advantageous position can hardly be said to be a unfair selection - still, soviet Russia outperforms it. The same can be said of Hungary when compared to Guatemala ect.

Considering your a liberal, im just going to assume your sence of irony has gone out the window with your sense of reality. Your condemnation of alternative economic practice has been predicated almost entirely upon such erroneous comparisons nfant-mortality rate in Russia was more than 2.5 times as high as in the United States and more than five times that of Japan - Maltsev.

I think comparing Russia to Brazil is a non runner , in broad terms Russia had close relations to Europe be it East or West prior to the revolution , odds would favour that in the absence of a communist revolution, some other form of revolution/reform would have occured over time and a market economy would have developed. I'd expect that a Eurocentric Russia would have been alot richer in economic terms at the 1990 point of time then communist Russia.

Yeah its obviously a common argumentative tactic to throw statistics around to prove that one point of view beats another. So in isolation the fact that Russia doesnt match Japan doesnt prove alot just like I would not condemn an African country for having a lower standard of living compared to a western country, I'll happily give you credit for pointing that out.
However you can analyse any economy and make a judgement if it makes the best use of its resources. Given that the USSR rated its security/defense structures above supplying decent and innovative services plus the economic argument that free economies are more productive than command economies then my conclusion is that communism in Russia was a failure for the people that lived under it. And thats before getting into the lack of personal freedom , body counts and the many that were imprisioned for thought crimes.

synd wrote: »

First, its not like causation has not been established - the re-distribution of wealth and implimenation of social reform saw direct increase in living standards. Soviet organization was more efficient than the previous feudal mode therefore led to a higher circulation of produce among the general population. With regards the ''cost'' - I personally consider the transition from feudalism to state socialism a welcome one, granted soviet society was repressive however hardly more so than Tzarist russia. The price you refer to, presumably both world wars, the October revolution, the civil war, the terrors ect would act as obvious detrminets to any developing economy - which is why soviet development appears more impressive.

Same argument as above, Tzarist Russia would have been replaced during the 20thC. The technological advances of the 20thC was enough to ensure that standards of living would have happened in any event. No doubt the transition may not have been peaceful but I find it hard to imagine any other civil war setup that would have produced anywhere near the body counts then under their actual history.

Socialist Anarchism

Comments