Communism

[Rick Ross 187]

my god, these stupid analogies - nickels and dimes, towns cities lol. go tell a czechoslovak citizen who has to queue for hours for a bread everyday, or a East German citizen that has to sign up to a list for a shitty trabant car, or a romanian who has to steal from his factory and then travel to hungary to sell whatever crap he could sell in order to purchase some butter, that across the border in Austria with its Keynsianism "its pretty much the same". i don't know why u would insist on trying to portraying the hell and lunacy that was 'Communism' in Eastern Europe as the same thing as the Social Democracy age of Western Europe. No, an Keynsian economy where the government attempt to push the economy in a general direction is not the same as one where every single unit of production in the economy is drawn up by a central planning agency, and the distribution and sale of these goods being under a complete monopoly of the state.

if u want know how the communist experience of eastern europe differed read:
Slavenka Drakulic - Cafe Europa: Life After Communism
Alec Nove - An Economic History of the USSR

---

(06-29-2012 10:31 PM)Laz Wrote:  

(06-29-2012 08:01 PM)Rick Ross 187 Wrote:  

(06-29-2012 06:44 PM)shakur420 Wrote:  The Marshall Plan dictated what areas and economies were to be sources of raw materials, production hubs, and consumer markers, what areas were to be "rebuilt" and how, etc. The Keynisian policies were things like severe capital controls, financial regulation, etc. How is that different than a planned economy? Because they called it "Capitalism"? HAHAHAHA

are u actually suggesting that there was no difference between how the economies of post-ww2 Western Europe and the economies Soviet Satellite states functioned? have u ever read a history book on the USSR and its imitation states of Central and Eastern Europe? you seem to have no idea how the Soviet economy functioned beyond "it was topdown! no workers control! it was bad!" (i must say all these contentions are true)

After lenins death of course

There was no single method of how the Soviet economy was run during the years of Lenin. For most of the time there was barely an economy. It would be bullshit to say that there was always workers control under Lenin, 'War Communism' got rid of that as labour was put under increasing discipline to meet Civil War needs which pretty much meant the destruction of any workers organs of power. The years of Lenin were a complete mess tho, filled with incompetence, amateurism and of course war.

[1871]

Shakur420 - in which case it is the differences which are the distinguishing factor - unless that is the idea of multiparty contested democracy and plurality mean nothing.

[shakur420]

I've actually worked with a girl who grew up in Romania and she explained the major difference pre and post '91. Before, everyone had something to eat. Maybe stale bread, some milk and you had to wait in lines for hours or whatever. After, when they adopted a so-called "market" economy, there came tons of things you could buy in stores. Clothes, jewelry, food, supplies. But no one can afford anything. That's the major difference her and her mom noticed, lol.

So yeah, I have talked to a few people about this, and people in my country wonder how this is "capitalist" or "market-oriented" when the government slaps down "back to work" legislation every time workers go on strike. Or how giant corporations are bailed out by public funds and allowed to go about their business as usual. You can hear all this stuff in economic literature, or press, you know, the stuff you say you're familiar with. Don't see how you could miss it. Or pretend that rhetoric - like just cause they call it a "free market" means it is, even though what they describe is so similar to so-called socialist economies - is supposed to be taken seriously.

You're confusing things here. I'm not talking about modern Keynesian proposals, stuff they attribute to "new keynesians" and shit, which would be your "pushing" things in a "general direction" stuff (lol, which by the way, is pure rhetoric too, there's very clear understandings about cause and effect, like I said, you just need to read criticisms and proposals on economics). But remember I'm talking about the Marshall Plan and the Keynes' proposals back then, in that time. The capital controls, the Bretton-Woods shit, the allocation of various areas for specific purposes, it was pretty controlled. There's clear differences between what Keynesian proposals meant during that time and what they mean now, under current conditions. The idea is not to "push" in a "general direction" by default. It's very down-the-middle, centrist economics. You do what you need to do depending on the conditions. It can range from strict controls and massive intervention to milder restrictions, where the state intervenes only when necessary. But that's the key, isn't it? When "necessary"? lol, that could include everyone from Lenin to Obama, and why I don't see any inherent difference between the models.

When you force an entire continent to be only a source of raw materials, go to war in another content to ensure it remains a production area and commercial market, strangle and extort countries by controlling their access to energy, etc., so they fit properly into this global design, I really would like a clear answer as to how this is inherently different than a command economy. Analogies are perfectly fine, the only reason you would be upset or frustrated with them is because they draw a picture you don't like.

Economically, "multi-party' stuff doesn't make much difference, as we can see in the US and Canada.

[regzus]

Me and my friend Yugoslavian.

[Fuzzly Bear]

(06-28-2012 11:11 PM)aleXbosnian Wrote:  Two of my grandparents lived in "poor" Sarajevo and still had it really good

Orwell asked a dude in a slum when the housing problem got real bad, and the reply was 'when we were told about it'

[1871]

Quote:Shakur 420
I've actually worked with a girl who grew up in Romania and she explained the major difference pre and post '91. Before, everyone had something to eat. Maybe stale bread, some milk and you had to wait in lines for hours or whatever. After, when they adopted a so-called "market" economy, there came tons of things you could buy in stores. Clothes, jewelry, food, supplies. But no one can afford anything. That's the major difference her and her mom noticed, lol.

But is she still eating stale bread and milk? Too young to remember the Securitate then?

You have a very naive view of what actually life was like in the Eastern bloc countries under Communism and what led to the risings of 1989.

http://thevieweast.wordpress.com/2011/07...ice-state/

Quote:Shakur420


Economically, "multi-party' stuff doesn't make much difference, as we can see in the US and Canada.

Economically it does. As you can see in the economic basket cases that became of the Communist regimes And remember - I used the words plurality and contested.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/plurality

If the contestations are truly democratically contested then they will represent the plurality of the electorate. Where there isnt, hedgemonies of power concentrate. The less contestation the more concentration of power into unaccountable hands.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Ceausescu-Securi...310&sr=1-1

Quote:Shakur420
You're confusing things here. I'm not talking about modern Keynesian proposals, stuff they attribute to "new keynesians" and shit, which would be your "pushing" things in a "general direction" stuff (lol, which by the way, is pure rhetoric too, there's very clear understandings about cause and effect, like I said, you just need to read criticisms and proposals on economics).

Sounds like you need to do so. On this, as on other things you are more than a tad confused and ignoring the work of significant economists. Its more than amusing that you seem to think that there is a consensus (even Keynesian theories) rather than some very significant disagreements between economists and the efficacy of economic policy in any given direction eg; fiscal stimulus, endogenous growth,Lernian,Hazlitt, functional finance,etc. This was covered on the Capitalism thread,. Its clear you did not read the links.

Quote:Shakur420

You do what you need to do depending on the conditions. It can range from strict controls and massive intervention to milder restrictions, where the state intervenes only when necessary. But that's the key, isn't it? When "necessary"? lol, that could include everyone from Lenin to Obama, and why I don't see any inherent difference between the models.

Here is the difference; make sure you read;

http://www.immortaltechnique.co.uk/Thread-Holodomor

Quote:Shakur420

Or pretend that rhetoric - like just cause they call it a "free market" means it is, even though what they describe is so similar to so-called socialist economies - is supposed to be taken seriously.

It isnt - Communism was a hell of a lot worse. There was a lot more micro-economic control.

The idea that you think a 'multi-party' democracy is irrelevant and that you would be willing to concentrate power into an all powerful executive only ensures those outcomes which you 'purportedly' abhorr.

China is an excellent example of how they had to abandon State control over every aspect of commerce in order to get their economy up and running and how this is contributing to now directly challenging one party hedgemony;

http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr...na&f=false

http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr...na&f=false

http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/7204077/Pro...elebrates/

In fact where free trade has to take place there is an accompanying rise in the democratic process and in civil liberties. This takes time as hedgemonies never like to relinquish power - but it is an inevitable process with the conditions Ive described.

Id like to hear your alternatives. Do you mean 'democratic accountability' without multi-party democracy? Please explain - Id like to hear this.

As Ive said - your willingness to adopt an easy rhetoric posture rather than think things through really does show your limitations on this subject. Capitalism has to be regulated controlled, commanded and be let free also - that might sound contradictory but its the reason there is legislation for over exploitation, ecological measures, pollution, consideration of effects of exploitation, working conditions etc - and actually such considerations properly applied can increase productivityto the benefit of peoples not to their disadvantage. There has to be some degree of control - and it would be irresponsible not to consider such effects in legislature.
You dont trade to begin with unless you both have the freedom to do so, and at the same time command (design and manufacture) what it is that you create. Different factors come into play at different times.

[aleXbosnian]

(07-01-2012 09:59 PM)HamishFTW Wrote:  

(06-28-2012 11:11 PM)aleXbosnian Wrote:  Two of my grandparents lived in "poor" Sarajevo and still had it really good

Orwell asked a dude in a slum when the housing problem got real bad, and the reply was 'when we were told about it'

And my grandparents ain't living in the slums, bro.

[1871]

no they were poor but still 'had it good'.

[aleXbosnian]

(07-01-2012 11:13 PM)1871 Wrote:  no they were poor but still 'had it good'.

Stop putting words in my mouth, again. Quote me where I stated that they were poor. Otherwise you can just delete that useless post.

[1871]

you mean Sarajevo wasnt poor? You have just stated it was poor. Your own words. You mean there were poor Yugoslavians in Sarajevo but not as poor as other Yugoslavians in Sarajevo in the 'great' Communist Yugoslavia - or what about they had it good while others were poor - so thats ok then - that validates a failed system to show it wasnt really a failure after all. Thats the great Communist system that brings prosperity makes everyone 'equal'.
Well off while others are poor.
And if the people were overall not poor but had a modest prosperity why do you use the word 'poor'.
In fact you have it so good that now because of those consequences you queue to get over the border and you have the nerve still to be promoting the system that led exactly to your poverty - only you have to deny this saying it merely dropped in after Titos death - but then its just necessary to read this to show how you ignore logic as well as historical evidence;

http://www.immortaltechnique.co.uk/Threa...ution-1989

Maybe you can just blame it on the Serbs. Clearly you do not learn from your past mistakes. So because party officials and supporters of a regime have it 'really good' while a city is 'poor' this is a recommendation of an economic system based on a dictatorship and one party rule? Your posts alone show why Communism fell apart resulting in its consequent Balkanisation. Disgusting!

[aleXbosnian]

Re-read, bro.

(06-28-2012 11:11 PM)aleXbosnian Wrote:  Two of my grandparents lived in "poor" Sarajevo and still had it really good

Look how I wrote "poor". The quote goes to everyone that called Sarajevo one of the poorer places in Yugoslavia, which it was partly, mostly in the beginning of SFRY. My grandparents weren't any supporters or any fan of the regime, but they still admit it to having it good during SFRY, much better than now. Why would I, who haven't - I assume - lived as long as all of my relatives in SFRY, believe you? Would my non-supports lie to me? Why? If they had it bad they would just have said it. I have relatives from Croatia, Bosnia & Serbia. They all believe it was better before. Fuck, even my patriotic (I think they are more of stealth-nationalists now after the war) Serb-relatives who I no longer got any contact with said it was better before.

20% official unemployment rate atm in Bosnia, while many EU-countries think the real number is over 30%. Must be "Tito's fault"? Dam Tito is everywhere were failure is.

Plus why don't you bash on SHS which was democracy but even more unequal, where every nationality actually agreed to be in. That Yugoslavia was more of a fail. It was more unequal, more unfairness, more fucked up. Democracy fail, or can you somehow connect that to communism aswell? "Tito's fault"? XD Dat ghost.

[shakur420]

I'll address the only relevant thing you mentioned. Freeing up markets does not coincide with Democracy, unless you consider Democracy to be elite control of the socioeconomic system. This is stuff maintained by people like Milton and it just doesn't hold any weight. There was no freeing up of markets in Spain, was there? Coinciding with mad democratic initiative. It's a busted old argument. Of course, by "free markets" you mean severe and narrow regulation, not actual free markets. There was probably some actual freedom in Spanish markets in '36, but that isn't what you're talking about. You're talking about the US or European style market, referred to as "free" and contrasted with the Soviet model (I'm assuming, because that's the context of this thread). In that context, the term "free market" has an effect of severely concentrating wealth and so decreasing Democracy.

What's my "alternative"? lol, I don't know. I'm not in a position to carry one out or advise people who are, is there any need for me to think about it too deeply? I can think about principles that make sense, etc. and leave it there, no? If not, why not? In terms of real life today, how to deal with Europe, deficits in a recession, etc., I read what the mainstream, center position is. People like Stiglitz, Krugman, Roubini, Baker, etc. Should it be the way they propose? No, I don't think so. But it's serious proposals and views in today's situation, so I pay attention to that, not rhetoric. I've explained the same things you did, about severe regulation in some areas and not so much in others, in the context of making our system function today, and to get better tomorrow. I get called a "social democrat" for saying that, HAHAHAHA

But I like the idea of workers' control. I think it holds a lot of weight in terms of benefit for society and individuals, for large sectors of the population. Makes sense to me and I've never seen any credible arguments against it. That's pretty much where I sit. I don't care about how many political parties there are. I care about how the economy functions and who holds weight in that economy. That will dictate what type of political and social situation you have, not how many parties you have. At the same tme, again, there's need for a realistic view, a pragmatic understanding of where we are today and what real possibilities we have, not fantasies about living in future societies where things are all radically different and how to materialize those societies today.

I prefer minority governments in parliamentary situations. Where there needs to be consensus and debate, argument and pressure in order to do shit. It's more democratic than majority governments. So whatever my leanings are, whatever I hope for or push towards, I'd prefer more diffusion of economic/political power than less. Having multiple competing parties doesn't necessarily guarantee this, but it's of course a good step. We're better off as Canadians, in this respect, compared to Americans, because we have 3 viable parties instead of 2. But since we have a majority government at the moment, it doesn't translate to much difference than the US's 2 party reality.