Discussion about Communism continued

[Rabid]

airbus seems pretty cool

Yeah, sure. But don't forget it isn't really French. It's European.



Out of Context :
Can someone makes a smiley like these ones :
... But with the european flag instead ?

[Phantasee]

What would be the crying animal?

[Rabid]

Shit. I don't know.

The Venus de Milo, maybe ?

[fgalkin]

Angela Merkel

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Rabid]

No you can't. I'm pretty sure the world would be destroyed. Or worse.

[Zixinus]

The bull obviously.

[Thanas]

Angela Merkel

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Angela Merkel does not cry. She dispenses orbs of poisonous liquids, which destroy anything in their path.

I was talking more about industrial projects and people dying there rather than widespread famines. The latter are a consequence of agrarian policy, which is largely separate from industrial policy. Russia, unlike Germany, used to have famines.

Is one really seperate from the other? And if you talk about industrial projects, then I suggest you also acknowledge that nobody is practicing manchester capitalism anymore.

In the name of competitiveness we might as well re-introduce slavery, albeit on a more modern level. As for legal and illegal immigrants, the migrant, even if he is a legal one, enjoys reduced protection. The relative scale of firings during economic downturns, which is 3-4 migrants for every domestic worker, tells that they are underprotected or, in essence, necessary only as cheap labour during boom times. Deportation also occurs as a measure against the most unprotected, the cheapest humans.

Or against people who break the law. See, this is what I object to - you reduce a pretty complex picture to a one-answer-fits-all, which is not really true. As for the migrants, I submit the problems they face are also the consequence of poor education or that they tend to find work in fields that are most vulnerable to market disturbances, which is also at least partly a consequence of their education.

By responsibility I mean something else rather than the feedback mechanisms. For example, who did more for Finland's economic growth - government or Nokia? In a market the answer is not clear. In a command economy, any success is a success of the government, any failure likewise, because no market exists. This is historical responsibility. Not answering for misdeeds does not mean not being responsible.

It does however mean that the citizen is vastly more in risk of state abuse than the other way. If you can sue the state and win without fear of consequences, that means you enjoy much more liberty than you do otherwise. Historical responsibility means squat if nobody is there to answer for them.

But I digress; the state may answer for individual bad acts in the First World, but when it comes to the Great Depression... nobody answers for that. There are no culprits, no one to be hanged on the lamppost. Curious, isn't it? Millions of people plunge into misery, and there is no one who can be held accountable - no set of people. That is what I meant.

Then you are wrong. A lot of people answered for the Great Depression as their businesses were nationalized, they were prosecuted etc. Unlike the current crop of politicians, Roosevelt and the other politicians had balls.

The current crisis only illuminated this problem once again. Millions of people plunge into povery. There are food crises in small nations because of the world prices on food rising or falling. There is no one responsible. "The invisible hand", he-he.

Which is BS. There are plenty of cases brought against those idiots in countries that have a working judicial system. Just because Obama is a weakling and refuses to prosecute people who are obviously guilty and everybody knows it does not mean other states will not.

So please, my point was hardly about whether the state answers for its actions. It was a point far more broad, that the state answers only for a small set of actions, unless there is a planned economy. In the latter case, the state is responsible for everything. Even if it's not accountable, it's still responsible.

And what does that achieve?

*shrugs* Not sure, haven't looked into Denmark or Germany that carefully yet. I believe, however, that there should be industrial projects with large death tolls (usually these are canals and railways). I found plenty of those in the USA, Britain, etc.

None come to mind. The largest death tolls I can find are mining accidents, which resulted in the mines being tightly regulated by the state. And even then the death tolls are in the double digits at most.

[Shroom Man 777]

Angela Merkel

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

YES

[K. A. Pital]

Is one really seperate from the other? And if you talk about industrial projects, then I suggest you also acknowledge that nobody is practicing manchester capitalism anymore.

Well, in case of the USSR, obviously they are. Collectivization was not relevant to industrialization (despite what some communists believe). As for what people practice now, that is largely irrelevant, since we're speaking about the initial industrial construction. After nations transition from agricultural to industrial economy and pass through the first wave of industrialization with low quality, accident prone industrial construction and factories. I mean, after the industrialization in the USSR was completed (by the late 1950s) the life standard was improved: life expectancy almost reached that of the First World, accidents during construction etc. were largely reduced, because large-scale use of heavy machinery began in earnest. Digging and building by hand went away.

Or against people who break the law. See, this is what I object to - you reduce a pretty complex picture to a one-answer-fits-all, which is not really true. As for the migrants, I submit the problems they face are also the consequence of poor education or that they tend to find work in fields that are most vulnerable to market disturbances, which is also at least partly a consequence of their education.

Isn't it natural, though, that migrants, who come from another nation, usually come from the poorest sections of society, and thus can hardly boast any education whatsoever? For them, construction industry is the only way to go. And it is quite a mutually beneficial situation, because education-less labourers obviously are cheaper, even with all the proper licenses and work-residence permits. Yeah, I reduce the picture to economism, and perhaps I'm wrong. Consider this, though - why no one cares to start witch-hunts and anti-immigrant hysteria, which includes deportations, during economic booms and especially construction booms? Why does this shit start during downturns, but during booms the government turns a blind eye? Heh. Maybe I'm wrong, but I see a general pattern there.

Then you are wrong. A lot of people answered for the Great Depression as their businesses were nationalized, they were prosecuted etc. Unlike the current crop of politicians, Roosevelt and the other politicians had balls.

Nationalization of a company is merely a last-line measure which should naturally come as a company goes bankrupt, it's not some sort of "responsibility" displayed by the capitalist. Who was prosecuted, incidentally? I am interested indeed.

There are plenty of cases brought against those idiots in countries that have a working judicial system.

Who went to jail in Europe, then?

None come to mind. The largest death tolls I can find are mining accidents, which resulted in the mines being tightly regulated by the state. And even then the death tolls are in the double digits at most.

Mining accidents and, if my history articles read correctly, railway accidents. But yes, Germany had a more tightly regulated process than the Anglophone nations (USA, Britain, etc.). However, that resulted in the process being much slower, with the well-known consequences (Germany being "the last to come" to the imperialist game of "conquer as much underdeveloped territories in the world as you can").

[Thanas]

Well, in case of the USSR, obviously they are. Collectivization was not relevant to industrialization (despite what some communists believe). As for what people practice now, that is largely irrelevant, since we're speaking about the initial industrial construction. After nations transition from agricultural to industrial economy and pass through the first wave of industrialization with low quality, accident prone industrial construction and factories. I mean, after the industrialization in the USSR was completed (by the late 1950s) the life standard was improved: life expectancy almost reached that of the First World, accidents during construction etc. were largely reduced, because large-scale use of heavy machinery began in earnest. Digging and building by hand went away.

That still misses the point - if industrialization and collectivization are not linked, then I submit that capitalism is a much better ideology than communism, because it manages to revolutionize agriculture without collectivization and millions of dead people.

Isn't it natural, though, that migrants, who come from another nation, usually come from the poorest sections of society, and thus can hardly boast any education whatsoever? For them, construction industry is the only way to go. And it is quite a mutually beneficial situation, because education-less labourers obviously are cheaper, even with all the proper licenses and work-residence permits. Yeah, I reduce the picture to economism, and perhaps I'm wrong. Consider this, though - why no one cares to start witch-hunts and anti-immigrant hysteria, which includes deportations, during economic booms and especially construction booms? Why does this shit start during downturns, but during booms the government turns a blind eye? Heh. Maybe I'm wrong, but I see a general pattern there.

I still think it is a bit of a copout to reduce it to such. While I think you are correct that anti-immigrant histeria gets noticed more, the actions are usually politically motivated. For example, Sarkozy is fighting for his political survival against a nationalist
right-wing party, which is why he made a bit of a show to pander to his own conservatives. Nothing of that has anything to do with capitalism or communism per se - the USSR was not that good for various minorities either. BTW, it would be wrong to say this stuff does not also continue in economic booms. It is just that during downturns it gets more attention.

Nationalization of a company is merely a last-line measure which should naturally come as a company goes bankrupt, it's not some sort of "responsibility" displayed by the capitalist. Who was prosecuted, incidentally? I am interested indeed.

I'll have to concede that for now, I do not have the papers with me. So I'll concede that premptively until I can get to them. IIRC the worst of the market fixers and CEOs who committed fraud were prosecuted, but I cannot remember the names right now.

Who went to jail in Europe, then?

Nobody so far, but indictments and trials are ongoing. The latest trial just started two months ago (link).

Mining accidents and, if my history articles read correctly, railway accidents. But yes, Germany had a more tightly regulated process than the Anglophone nations (USA, Britain, etc.). However, that resulted in the process being much slower, with the well-known consequences (Germany being "the last to come" to the imperialist game of "conquer as much underdeveloped territories in the world as you can").

What now? Germany came last because there was no political union until 1871 and because tax and poll policies prevented free trade in Germany. Having to pay 73 different taxes just to ship your goods from one end of the nation to the other tends to prevent industrialization and promote inefficient manufacturers. This really has nothing to do with capitalism or communism, but rather witb the political situation.

[K. A. Pital]

That still misses the point - if industrialization and collectivization are not linked, then I submit that capitalism is a much better ideology than communism, because it manages to revolutionize agriculture without collectivization and millions of dead people.

Collectivization is not a necessary element to communism. Why should communists support Stalin? Besides, this is disingenious. The same mechanisms (exporting food during a food crisis) caused famines in 1891, 1912, etc. in Russia, the Great Famine in Ireland, multiple famines in India, famine in Bangladesh and many food crises of the recent times. To say that a situation where food is exported under capitalism and it causes famine has not happened is to deny history. As for revolutionizing agriculture, I also contest this. The Green Revolution happens after industrialization is complete and chemical products are available. Before the massive availability of fertilizer, cultivars and machinery climate, crop yields and export volumes determine the food safety of nations.

For example, Sarkozy is fighting for his political survival against a nationalist right-wing party, which is why he made a bit of a show to pander to his own conservatives. Nothing of that has anything to do with capitalism or communism per se - the USSR was not that good for various minorities either. BTW, it would be wrong to say this stuff does not also continue in economic booms. It is just that during downturns it gets more attention.

So you say that political actions of Sarkozy are not motivated by economics? *suspicious* This is a bit strange. As for this continuing during booms, perhaps, but I'll need examples of deportations and mass migrant firings during booms, if you please.

I'll have to concede that for now, I do not have the papers with me. So I'll concede that premptively until I can get to them. IIRC the worst of the market fixers and CEOs who committed fraud were prosecuted, but I cannot remember the names right now.

Hmm... I'll look into that.

Nobody so far, but indictments and trials are ongoing. The latest trial just started two months ago (link).

Oh, xie xie ni. It seems you're going after the speculators, which is good. I'd love to see some sort of overall statistics which would show the level of indictments and trials as opposed to "normal", routine anti-speculator activities, but eh, I'll look into that.

What now? Germany came last because there was no political union until 1871 and because tax and poll policies prevented free trade in Germany. Having to pay 73 different taxes just to ship your goods from one end of the nation to the other tends to prevent industrialization and promote inefficient manufacturers. This really has nothing to do with capitalism or communism, but rather witb the political situation.

So you say that Germany having more tight labour regulations in e.g. railway and mining industry did not slow down projects? *hums* Perhaps I'm wrong, and that also requires further reading. However that may be, German industrialization was not a separate phenomena from the overall industrialization in Europe.

[Thanas]

Collectivization is not a necessary element to communism.

Yet it happened in every communist country so far (with the exception of Nepal?).

Why should communists support Stalin? Besides, this is disingenious. The same mechanisms (exporting food during a food crisis) caused famines in 1891, 1912, etc. in Russia, the Great Famine in Ireland, multiple famines in India, famine in Bangladesh and many food crises of the recent times. To say that a situation where food is exported under capitalism and it causes famine has not happened is to deny history.

No, however it would be wrong to paint communism as something beneficial or more beneficial than capitalism when the actual record reflects the opposite. In the 20th century, how many people died due to hunger in Western Europe? How many died due to communism?

So you say that political actions of Sarkozy are not motivated by economics? *suspicious* This is a bit strange.

No, they are motivated by politics.

As for this continuing during booms, perhaps, but I'll need examples of deportations and mass migrant firings during booms, if you please.

You'll first have to establish a pattern of deportions during downturns, which should happen in all capitalist countries according to you. As for the firings, that has more to do with the specific economic things than with ideology. High-risk jobs are the first to go in an economic downturn. And as you have snipped out the line about the Communist countries and their treatment of minorities, I suppose you concede that communism is not inherently superior to capitalism in how minorities are treated?

Oh, xie xie ni. It seems you're going after the speculators, which is good. I'd love to see some sort of overall statistics which would show the level of indictments and trials as opposed to "normal", routine anti-speculator activities, but eh, I'll look into that.

I do not think any such statistic exists. I checked the Kriminalstatistik, but that is about it. Suffice to say the mere fact that the prosecutors are taking their time and building and prosecuting people instead of sweaping it under the rug seems to suggest a strong interest in finding speculators. Of course, the same thing does not happen in the USA, but what do you expect of Obama?

So you say that Germany having more tight labour regulations in e.g. railway and mining industry did not slow down projects? *hums* Perhaps I'm wrong, and that also requires further reading.

Why should it slow down projects? Compared to what hindered progress before the regulations were nothing. Let me illustrate with just one example: A huge problem with mining is that you need an adequate supply of wood. Same for buildings, heating etc. to supply the workers. Now, the Ruhrgebiet was not exactly known for the quality of its wood, nor was there much supply. Why? Because the areas most suited to wood production in Germany were not owned by Prussia, but by Hannover/The British crown. After Prussia annexed Hannover, wood was now imported from Scandinavia and northern Germany.

Germany was completely fragmented until Bismarck, yet industrialization skyrocketed after the political unity. This seems to suggest to me that the main problems were not related to labor regulation. (And I fail to see how no regulation happening is in the end more beneficial to business, especially in a business area where losing skilled workers is hugely problematic, like in mining).

However that may be, German industrialization was not a separate phenomena from the overall industrialization in Europe.

No, but it does show that industrialization does not necessarily result in massive death if it is competently run. Something the Soviet Union lacked in parts.

[Simon_Jester]

You know, maybe this should be moved to Off-Topic?

Why should communists support Stalin? Besides, this is disingenious. The same mechanisms (exporting food during a food crisis) caused famines in 1891, 1912, etc. in Russia, the Great Famine in Ireland, multiple famines in India, famine in Bangladesh and many food crises of the recent times. To say that a situation where food is exported under capitalism and it causes famine has not happened is to deny history.

No, however it would be wrong to paint communism as something beneficial or more beneficial than capitalism when the actual record reflects the opposite. In the 20th century, how many people died due to hunger in Western Europe? How many died due to communism?

Stas would probably point out that we should add to the totals who died of hunger those who died under Western European rule: in India.

Except during the World Wars, Europe had an extremely secure food supply in the late 19th and the 20th century. But that was in large part because they were exceptionally rich (and had become so before communist rule began anywhere in the world) and had other nations that were dependent on agricultural exports to Europe.

A famine caused in the Ukraine under Soviet rule, due to Ukrainian food exports going to other parts of the USSR should count as a famine caused by Soviet communism.

But by the same token, a famine caused in India under British rule, due to Indian food exports going to Britain and not another part of India should count as a famine caused by British capitalism.

This seems a fair standard to me.

However that may be, German industrialization was not a separate phenomena from the overall industrialization in Europe.

No, but it does show that industrialization does not necessarily result in massive death if it is competently run. Something the Soviet Union lacked in parts.

A couple of other variables that could make a difference, at a guess:

1) Availability of cheap, expendable labor compared to the scale of the projects required

Russia is a relatively expansive country, which needed many thousands of miles of road, rail, and canal construction before they could begin to seriously industrialize. In Russia, the process of industrialization had hardly even begun until the late 19th century, and when the Communists took over there was still an enormous amount to be done to get the place out of the horse-and-buggy era. At the same time, there was a very large supply of cheap labor with no vote to do it with. From the point of view of any callous person in a position of power, that suggests an obvious solution: put the cheap, expendable labor to work building the infrastructure.

But we see the same mindset in other places. In the US, large amounts of cheap slave and immigrant labor were thrown at railroad and canal construction. In parts of the colonial empires, likewise.

In Germany, the disenfranchised labor pool available to do such things might (it is conceivable to me) have been smaller, forcing the German authorities to adopt a different solution involving higher pay and higher safety standards. And the physical challenge posed by the projects was often smaller- not that things like the Kiel Canal or the major German railroads are small, but they are smaller than undertakings like the Suez and Panama Canals,* or the Trans-Siberian and Transcontinental Railroads.** There is less danger to life and limb posed by the project, simply because there is less hard, dirty, dangerous work to be done.

*Both of which were dug in much harsher climates, more remote from the industrial infrastructure that would make the work easier, the Suez Canal with less benefit from industrial machinery, and the Panama Canal through more rugged terrain. Thousands of people died building each of those canals; how many died digging through to Kiel?
**Again, both of which were built through more remote areas; and (especially in Siberia) through a much harsher climate.

2) Social context

This feeds back into the availability of cheap, disenfranchised labor. In the US, for instance, there were plenty of racial minorities- outright slaves, and various immigrant groups later on- who could be used to do hard work in remote areas without much public outcry from the majority of the population. In Russia, the peasant class had been drafted off to do dangerous corvée labor before for the Czars, and they had no effective means of making their displeasure at this either under the Czars or under the Soviets.

The rapid industrial growth of Germany after unification occurred in a context where the average German citizen already enjoyed a relatively substantial degree of rights for the era, and where few Germans was the subject of intense discrimination by other Germans.

[Thanas]

You know, maybe this should be moved to Off-Topic?

No.

Stas would probably point out that we should add to the totals who died of hunger those who died under Western European rule: in India.

Except during the World Wars, Europe had an extremely secure food supply in the late 19th and the 20th century. But that was in large part because they were exceptionally rich (and had become so before communist rule began anywhere in the world) and had other nations that were dependent on agricultural exports to Europe.

A famine caused in the Ukraine under Soviet rule, due to Ukrainian food exports going to other parts of the USSR should count as a famine caused by Soviet communism.

But by the same token, a famine caused in India under British rule, due to Indian food exports going to Britain and not another part of India should count as a famine caused by British capitalism.

This seems a fair standard to me.

I deliberately left out India because that seems to me a consequence of oppression, of an excess in capitalism. Otherwise we might just as well count the millions killed in communist oppressive regimes as well against communism - the Khmer, the casualties of China, of the Stalinist purges and of the Civil wars.

Russia is a relatively expansive country, which needed many thousands of miles of road, rail, and canal construction before they could begin to seriously industrialize. In Russia, the process of industrialization had hardly even begun until the late 19th century, and when the Communists took over there was still an enormous amount to be done to get the place out of the horse-and-buggy era. At the same time, there was a very large supply of cheap labor with no vote to do it with. From the point of view of any callous person in a position of power, that suggests an obvious solution: put the cheap, expendable labor to work building the infrastructure.

But we see the same mindset in other places. In the US, large amounts of cheap slave and immigrant labor were thrown at railroad and canal construction. In parts of the colonial empires, likewise.

In Germany, the disenfranchised labor pool available to do such things might (it is conceivable to me) have been smaller, forcing the German authorities to adopt a different solution involving higher pay and higher safety standards. And the physical challenge posed by the projects was often smaller- not that things like the Kiel Canal or the major German railroads are small, but they are smaller than undertakings like the Suez and Panama Canals,* or the Trans-Siberian and Transcontinental Railroads.** There is less danger to life and limb posed by the project, simply because there is less hard, dirty, dangerous work to be done.

*Both of which were dug in much harsher climates, more remote from the industrial infrastructure that would make the work easier, the Suez Canal with less benefit from industrial machinery, and the Panama Canal through more rugged terrain. Thousands of people died building each of those canals; how many died digging through to Kiel?
**Again, both of which were built through more remote areas; and (especially in Siberia) through a much harsher climate.

You might have a point if you can cite the figures of people who died due to the climate. Otherwise, this remains an argument without backup - and still a very long stretch from "communism is inherently more beneficial than capitalism". Again, if we take the high-end communist country and compare it to high-end capitalist countries (and the development of industry there) communism does not come out ahead. Especially since every communist regime so far has been an oppressive one which, when push comes to shove (or just when they feel like it) does not care one bit about civil rights.

2) Social context

This feeds back into the availability of cheap, disenfranchised labor. In the US, for instance, there were plenty of racial minorities- outright slaves, and various immigrant groups later on- who could be used to do hard work in remote areas without much public outcry from the majority of the population. In Russia, the peasant class had been drafted off to do dangerous corvée labor before for the Czars, and they had no effective means of making their displeasure at this either under the Czars or under the Soviets.

The rapid industrial growth of Germany after unification occurred in a context where the average German citizen already enjoyed a relatively substantial degree of rights for the era, and where few Germans was the subject of intense discrimination by other Germans.

Really now? I suggest you go back and view how the Poles and Czechs were treated. Yes, they were still treated better than by the Russians, but there was still discrimination, suppression of minorities etc. Besides, most people probably felt themselves first as citizens of their respective states (Württemburg, Baden, Hamburg, Bayern etc.) than German first. There is a historical argument that Germany as such only happened due to the war of 1871 (where Bismarck used the nationalist idea very well) and due to WWI (shared suffering etc.)

You have a point in the context of relative rights, but you would be wrong to say there were no racial minorities etc.


In any case, there has not been one argument why communism is superior to capitalism in here, so I posit it still is an unproven assertion.

[Simon_Jester]

I am not Stas and am not really interested in sticking up for communism at the moment, but I would like to at least try to back up some of my earlier arguments, or explain my decision to cease trying to do so.

Stas would probably point out that we should add to the totals who died of hunger those who died under Western European rule: in India...

I deliberately left out India because that seems to me a consequence of oppression, of an excess in capitalism. Otherwise we might just as well count the millions killed in communist oppressive regimes as well against communism - the Khmer, the casualties of China, of the Stalinist purges and of the Civil wars.

I am honestly not sure.

If we're going to compare communist and capitalist administration, while factoring out oppression, should capitalist societies with colonial empires get a free pass for what happens in their colonies because they stack the economic deck to enrich themselves at the colonies' expense? That's not an inevitable part of the capitalist system, but it does seem to become a recurring theme for the colonial Europeans and for the modern US.

And yes, for consistency's sake we probably should throw in comparable effects of exploitation of communist countries by larger ones- the Warsaw Pact nations and the USSR being an obvious example.

You might have a point if you can cite the figures of people who died due to the climate.

On the Panama Canal, we have hospital records of 5600 dead during the American construction, out of a total labor force of about 75000, not employed continuously (this figure I am less confident of, but I strongly expect a figure close to this). A large fraction of those deaths would be from disease.

From the CDC, we have a death rate to malaria among Canal employees of 11.5 per 1000 in November 1906, which dropped as time went on due to improved anti-malarial measures. The death rate during the abortive French construction effort was much higher, due to a lack of techniques for suppressing tropical diseases. I have seen figures of ~20000 total deaths, but am not sure what proportion of them were due to tropical disease. I suspect it was a nontrivial fraction.

Figures for the Suez Canal, I am honestly having trouble finding, but every time I look I see five-figure death tolls: tens of thousands, sometimes even six figures. Again, epidemic diseases are repeatedly cited as a major factor.

Put simply, tropical diseases were absolutely brutal for men working at hard labor in tropical climates, until techniques to control the rate of outbreaks were developed. Especially when the labor force was shipped in from areas less subject to the diseases. In the massive labor force needed to dig the Suez Canal, 'tropical' diseases wasn't so much of a problem- this was a far drier climate- but cholera outbreaks in the work camps were.

Otherwise, this remains an argument without backup - and still a very long stretch from "communism is inherently more beneficial than capitalism". Again, if we take the high-end communist country and compare it to high-end capitalist countries (and the development of industry there) communism does not come out ahead. Especially since every communist regime so far has been an oppressive one which, when push comes to shove (or just when they feel like it) does not care one bit about civil rights.

Agreed. But I do think it's a reasonable point to make when the brutality of Stalinist-type forced-labor programs is mentioned: a lot of the dying happens anyway, when the basic social conditions of a large force of cheap labor and minimal industrial support for a massive infrastructure project are met.

Peasants have been dying to build large works for powerful men since ancient times; this is nothing new.

Really now? I suggest you go back and view how the Poles and Czechs were treated. Yes, they were still treated better than by the Russians, but there was still discrimination, suppression of minorities etc.

Excuse me, I had forgotten.

You have a point in the context of relative rights, but you would be wrong to say there were no racial minorities etc.

They existed, but- excepting perhaps Poles and Czechs, I would be surprised to learn that there was anything in Germany quite like the attitude whites had towards tropical peoples, or towards Irish and Chinese immigrants in America. As in, I know that there was little or no love lost between, say, Prussia and Bavaria. But it would surprise me to learn that, a Prussian would have seen a Bavarian as being some kind of near-ape whom he could work to death with a clean conscience.

[Shroom Man 777]

Isn't it kind of unfair to compare communist countries with periods of oppression to capitalist countries with periods of oppression?

The capitalist countries have lasted for centuries. They probably had decades of oppression and colonialism in their nations' total lifespan of centuries.

Communist countries have never lasted that long. They had decades of oppression too... but their nations' total lifespan was also measured in decades.

I mean, shit. For example, the American institution slavery - just counting from slavery when the USA existed (and not counting slavery in America before the USA) - lasted for 89 years.

Comparatively, the Soviet Union's whole existence as a nation lasted only 69 years.

The oppressive periods of capitalist nations lasted longer than the entire existences of communist nations.

[K. A. Pital]

Yet it happened in every communist country so far (with the exception of Nepal?).

No. Nepal, SFRY, aforementioned Chile, hmm... What else? It is a bit hard to find nations which did not employ collectivization, because communism primarily spread in the Stalin or post-Stalin version throughout the world, owing much to the prestige of the USSR as the winner in World War II. So deviations are mostly found among nations that either came under communist rule after the USSR collapsed, rejected Soviet patronage or maintained lax ties with the USSR. However, that is enough to prove collectivization is hardly a necessary element for any socialist or communist government. Besides, while we are here, collectivization in many other communist nations did not lead to famines. This indicates that not only collectivization, but also Soviet export policies were linked to the famine. And those export policies are not unique to communist governments.

No, however it would be wrong to paint communism as something beneficial or more beneficial than capitalism when the actual record reflects the opposite. In the 20th century, how many people died due to hunger in Western Europe? How many died due to communism?

How many died due to hunger in East Germany, the only communist nation in Western Europe? None, as far as I know. Besides, communism can be beneficial or counterbeneficial depending on the initial conditions. Communism was undeniably beneficial for Central Asia - these nations achieved a higher level of development than their cross-border counterparts with similar initial conditions. Communism was undeniably counterbeneficial to some West and East European nations in the COMECON and WARPAC, because these nations achieved a lower level of development than their cross-border counterparts with similar initial conditions.

You'll first have to establish a pattern of deportions during downturns, which should happen in all capitalist countries according to you. As for the firings, that has more to do with the specific economic things than with ideology. High-risk jobs are the first to go in an economic downturn. And as you have snipped out the line about the Communist countries and their treatment of minorities, I suppose you concede that communism is not inherently superior to capitalism in how minorities are treated?

A pattern of deportations, in my view, has been quite adequately established. In the 1920s boom in the USA mass immigration of Mexicans was made extremely easy by the government because they needed cheap labour for the construction industry. After the onset of the Great Depression, between one and two million Mexicans were deported, notwithstanding the fact many were either legal residents or had children who were born in the States. In 1953-1954 the US entered a costly recession. And lo, results were swift to come one: million illegals were deported. The current recession has resulted in tightening immigrant laws, revisions and actual expulsions all across Europe: France, Britain, etc.

I never said communism offers overall superior treatment. However, when it comes to things like universal employment and equality, post-Stalin era USSR was quite adequate in providing everyone regardless of race and nationality with a workplace and similar, if not 100% equal, guarantees and living conditions. I am not sure why you think that firings have anything to do with ideology. Capitalism is a much an economic system as ideology. Economic events like mass firings are quite relevant here, because they can happen under the economic system of capitalism (ideology regardless, be it nationalism, pan-Europeanism or something else).

Of course, the same thing does not happen in the USA, but what do you expect of Obama?

Social-democratic regimes also have ideological imperatives to introduce a measure of accountability, unlike their more right-wing counterparts. After all, political power over a capitalist system is likewise not a monolithic entity. However, I have yet to see any adequate reaction to the events that have transpired.

(And I fail to see how no regulation happening is in the end more beneficial to business, especially in a business area where losing skilled workers is hugely problematic, like in mining).

Certainly the low cost of Irish and Chinese workers, who fled famine at home and ended up in the USA and Canada, where they were, well, worked to death on railways and canals by the then-employers, helped to complete these projects with lower costs and in a reasonably fast time, because thousands of dead did not hinder the process of digging or construction, allowing to move further despite mass fatalities. In an essence, dirty and deadly industry spreads fast, because with little regulation, it is easier to set up factories, and with labour unprotected, the costs are kept in check. Later on it becomes a hindrance, but initially this is an important factor accelerating industrialization. Britain was the first to industrialize, and it is not a coincidence that Britain's policy of enclosures, which created a mass of destitute and rightless workers, coupled with lax labour regulations, helped to speed up industrial development. The USA demonstrated extremely fast industrial growth tempoes in the period immediately after the initial phase of industrial and infrastructural buildup was more or less complete. The critical pieces of U.S. infrastructure were built with extremely lax regulations and lots of fatalities as well.

No, but it does show that industrialization does not necessarily result in massive death if it is competently run. Something the Soviet Union lacked in parts.

European and North American industrialization resulted in massive deaths both in the territories proper and in imperial posessions nonetheless, especially during construction of most critical infrastructure (Panama, Suez, railways and canals in Britain, USA, etc.). Considering the USSR copied the British-American model more so than any other model, it is not surprising. And why did the USSR decide to copy Britain and America? The first was obvious, Britain was the heart of Industrial Revolution, and America by the early XX century became the foremost industrial power in the world. So both models had something else than sheer megadeaths speaking for them. The USSR lacked competent management, but Europe wasn't uniformly competently run either. I do not see a reason to make any general observations about superiority based on single examples. After all, some territories in the USSR fared much better than others, and some COMECON nations had a much greater success with collectivization than the USSR. I don't make any general observations, because the failure in the USSR alone is a serious problem. So a lack of failure in other places does not validate universal acceptance of the policy. Likewise, a lack of some patterns of Industrial Revolution in Bismarckian Germany doesn't validate universal acceptance of capitalist industrialization as victimless.

I deliberately left out India because that seems to me a consequence of oppression, of an excess in capitalism. Otherwise we might just as well count the millions killed in communist oppressive regimes as well against communism - the Khmer, the casualties of China, of the Stalinist purges and of the Civil wars.

Um... why? *eyes suspiciously* Besides, most people do count the victims of Stalin's purges as victims of communism, regardless of the fact that some communists and socialists were against Stalin. Why victims of civil wars should be counted as victims of communism, instead of being split in two between the warring parties? And finally, India and Ireland were not "consequences of opression". They were a consequence of the same export policy: food was being exported out of the nation despite the domestic population not having enough to buy it and thus dying.

Reacting against calls for relief during the 1877–79 famine, Lytton replied, "Let the British public foot the bill for its 'cheap sentiment,' if it wished to save life at a cost that would bankrupt India," substantively ordering "there is to be no interference of any kind on the part of Government with the object of reducing the price of food," and instructing district officers to "discourage relief works in every possible way.... Mere distress is not a sufficient reason for opening a relief work."

In 1874 the response from the British authorities was better and famine was completely averted. Then in 1876 a huge famine broke out in Madras. Lord Lytton's administration believed that 'market forces alone would suffice to feed the starving Indians.' The results of such thinking proved fatal (some 5.5 million starved), so this policy was abandoned.

The British had established control over Western India in the early decades of the 19th century; this consisted of direct administration of the conquered territories in the expanded Bombay Presidency as well as in the British outpost of Ajmer-Merwara farther north. The middle decades of the 19th century saw not only the implementation of a new system of land revenue and land rights in these areas, but also the establishment of new civil law. Under the new land rights system, peasants could be dispossessed of their land if they failed to pay the land-revenue (or land-tax) in a timely fashion. The British, however, continued to rely on local Baniya usurers, or Sahukars, to supply credit to the peasants. The imposition of the new system of civil law, however, meant that the peasants could be exploited by the sahukars, who were often able, through the new civil courts, to acquire title-deeds to a peasant's land for non-payment of debt.

The mid-19th century was also a time of predominance of the economic theories of Adam Smith and David Ricardo, and the principle of laissez-faire was subscribed to by many colonial administrators; the British, consequently, declined to interfere in the markets. This meant that the Baniya sahukars could resort to hoarding during times of scarcity, driving up the price of food grain, and profiteering in the aftermath. All this occurred in Western India during the famine of 1899–1900.

In Khaira District in present-day Gujarat, many peasants were forced to hand over their lands to the sahukars as security for meager loans that not only didn't granted them much relief, but that they later couldn't repay on account of exorbitant interest. The sahukars were to foreclose on these loans in the years after the famine; in the princely state of Baroda, for example, the recorded land-transfers were to jump from an average of 13,000 per year during the decade of the 1890s, to over 65,000 during the year 1902–1903.

The sahukars, in their effort to drive up prices, were even able to export grain out of areas of scarcity using the faster means of transport that came in with British rule. Here again the colonial administrators declined to intervene, even though they themselves often disapproved of the practice. This happened, for example, in the Panchmahals—one of the worst famine-afflicted areas in 1900—where a railway line had been built in the 1890s. A British deputy district collector recorded in his report, "The merchants first cleared large profits by exporting their surplus stocks of grain at the commencement of the famine, and, later on by importing maize from Cawnpore and Bombay and rice from Calcutta and Rangoon." He went on to record that the sahukars were building new houses for themselves from these windfall profits.= The blatant profiteering, however, led to grain riots in the Panchmahals by Bhil tribals, and grain riots became a feature of other British-ruled areas during times of famine. This contrasted markedly with the princely states, where the authorities often did intervene. For example, in Jodhpur State, a famine-stricken area in Rajputana, in August 1899, the state officials set up a shop to sell grain at cost price, forcing the Baniya merchants to eventually bring down their prices

Where is any "excess" of capitalism? It is simply capitalism. Private property, exports, prices. Like I said, in pre-industrial socities the size of the harvest, prices and export volume balance singlehandedly determines food safety. Opression doesn't even factor in here.

You might have a point if you can cite the figures of people who died due to the climate. Otherwise, this remains an argument without backup - and still a very long stretch from "communism is inherently more beneficial than capitalism". Again, if we take the high-end communist country and compare it to high-end capitalist countries (and the development of industry there) communism does not come out ahead. Especially since every communist regime so far has been an oppressive one which, when push comes to shove (or just when they feel like it) does not care one bit about civil rights.

Um... why is Simon's point invalid? Twenty seven thousand workers (French, then American) perished during the construction of Panama Canal, a critical piece of industrial infrastructure for the US and the overall American continents' market development. Around a hundred thousand workers perished building the Suez, due to harsh climate and primitive labour tools which required physically draining the labourers. The Suez was more than critical for European industrialization, creating a way for major European empires to facilitiate Europe-Asia trade through the Indian ocean, instead of going around Africa. By how many years the lack of a Suez canal would have set Europe back in it's pursuit of industrial future? This is not easy to calculate. New Basin Canal in the USA, Transcontinental railway, Manchester Ship Canal in Britain, et cetera. Panama railway. African railways built by British and other colonial Empires, operated in the same environment - harsch climate, little industry, primitive tools - and cost thousands of lives. The list could go on and on. The number of projects I know off-hand is large enough, and there's probably dozens, if not hundreds, I don't know about. There's a massive difference in death tolls between the White Sea Canal in the USSR (ten thousand dead) in the early 1930s and the Volga-Don Canal (several hundred dead) in the early 1950s were built under Stalin, and the latter hardly became less opressive (in fact, numbers of incarcerated in the early 1950s were greater than those in the early 1930s). However, the introduction of modern machinery meant the canal was no longer dug by hand. The casualties immediately fell several times. Same happened with the penal system - in the early 30s, casualties reached around and sometimes over 5%, whereas in the 1950s they were a fraction of 1%. The penal system didn't change overnight - the introduction of industrial machinery, less manual labour and antibiotics, however, lowered the death rates.

Besides, communism in the USSR has had what, 70 years of history, and it was industrially mature, i.e. finished industrialization by the mid-1950s? It's mature period lasted barely for another 30 years. On the other hand, First World industrialization proceeded for many years before that, and by the onset of the XX century was completed. Besides, why is a second-rate, underindustrialized nation like Russia forced to compete with First World nations? And even then, this competition wasn't entirely a loss for Russia. Having a 20-year difference in life expectancy between Russia and US in the 1900s, in just 50 years (1919-1959) the USSR shortened the gap and reached almost the same long life. This is just one indicator, but it is quite important. The USSR reached rank 22 on the HDI table by the late 1980s, being outperformed almost entirely by First World nations. This is not the best possible result, obviously, but neither is this result bad enough to make a sweeping generalization.

I posit it still is an unproven assertion

I think the point is not communist superiority. It is a difference in ideology. Communist ideology in post-Stalin days centered on technicism, scientific triumphs that will lead humanity to the stars, etc. When the USSR collapsed, the space race and scientific triumphs were put in the dust bin of history, because commercialization became more important across the entire world. Consumerism triumphed, and triumphed globally. As a result, long scientific projects with no clear commercial gains in sight related to fundamental science, exploration of space, etc. had their funding reduced. A general shift to short-sightedness, and preferrance of short-term, immediate benefits occured across the entire world, not being confined to a single nation. Both the USA and former USSR experienced major setbacks in further exploration of space, reduced funding, etc. Many scientific projects that could come to fruition never saw the light of day.

It is not related directly to some sort of moral superiorty of either ideology. However, the system which puts selling stuff in front of making stuff, which is today's capitalism, is related to this setback, because it occured during its universal triumph. It is very hard to sell space exploration, fundamental science, etc. - costs are incredibly large, often too large even for governments, not speaking of private entities, and benefits are uncertain and often lay far in the future, despite being possibly more significant and substantial than any short-term consumerist bullshit I'm going to buy at the shop tomorrow.

Hmm. I need to be more concise next time.

[Thanas]

If we're going to compare communist and capitalist administration, while factoring out oppression, should capitalist societies with colonial empires get a free pass for what happens in their colonies because they stack the economic deck to enrich themselves at the colonies' expense? That's not an inevitable part of the capitalist system, but it does seem to become a recurring theme for the colonial Europeans and for the modern US.

And yes, for consistency's sake we probably should throw in comparable effects of exploitation of communist countries by larger ones- the Warsaw Pact nations and the USSR being an obvious example.

If we do that, however, then the USSR, proportionally speaking, is one of the worst regimes in history, probably coming in right behind the British Empire (excluding the Mongols and various ancient empires). Hardly a good argument to make here for your position.

On the Panama Canal, we have hospital records of 5600 dead during the American construction, out of a total labor force of about 75000, not employed continuously (this figure I am less confident of, but I strongly expect a figure close to this). A large fraction of those deaths would be from disease.

From the CDC, we have a death rate to malaria among Canal employees of 11.5 per 1000 in November 1906, which dropped as time went on due to improved anti-malarial measures. The death rate during the abortive French construction effort was much higher, due to a lack of techniques for suppressing tropical diseases. I have seen figures of ~20000 total deaths, but am not sure what proportion of them were due to tropical disease. I suspect it was a nontrivial fraction.

Figures for the Suez Canal, I am honestly having trouble finding, but every time I look I see five-figure death tolls: tens of thousands, sometimes even six figures. Again, epidemic diseases are repeatedly cited as a major factor.

Put simply, tropical diseases were absolutely brutal for men working at hard labor in tropical climates, until techniques to control the rate of outbreaks were developed. Especially when the labor force was shipped in from areas less subject to the diseases. In the massive labor force needed to dig the Suez Canal, 'tropical' diseases wasn't so much of a problem- this was a far drier climate- but cholera outbreaks in the work camps were.

I meant the Soviet climate, as your argument was that the various climate differences bear a large fault in the various deaths compared to the Industrialization of Germany.

Agreed. But I do think it's a reasonable point to make when the brutality of Stalinist-type forced-labor programs is mentioned: a lot of the dying happens anyway, when the basic social conditions of a large force of cheap labor and minimal industrial support for a massive infrastructure project are met.

Peasants have been dying to build large works for powerful men since ancient times; this is nothing new.

Minimal industrial support? Sorry, but when you manage to kill more people than all the other construction projects in the 19th century combined, then that is not just a sign of the circumstances, it speaks of callous disregard for the very people your ideology is supposed to protect the most.

They existed, but- excepting perhaps Poles and Czechs, I would be surprised to learn that there was anything in Germany quite like the attitude whites had towards tropical peoples, or towards Irish and Chinese immigrants in America. As in, I know that there was little or no love lost between, say, Prussia and Bavaria. But it would surprise me to learn that, a Prussian would have seen a Bavarian as being some kind of near-ape whom he could work to death with a clean conscience.

They had no problem shooting, plundering and fighting each other for centuries. And the treatment of the poles was very brutal, easily mirroring that with the Irish.

No. Nepal, SFRY, aforementioned Chile, hmm... What else? It is a bit hard to find nations which did not employ collectivization, because communism primarily spread in the Stalin or post-Stalin version throughout the world, owing much to the prestige of the USSR as the winner in World War II. So deviations are mostly found among nations that either came under communist rule after the USSR collapsed, rejected Soviet patronage or maintained lax ties with the USSR. However, that is enough to prove collectivization is hardly a necessary element for any socialist or communist government. Besides, while we are here, collectivization in many other communist nations did not lead to famines. This indicates that not only collectivization, but also Soviet export policies were linked to the famine. And those export policies are not unique to communist governments.

I find it quite hard to follow this line of thought - yes, export was a prerequisite as well, but so was the drop in productivity. Unless there was none?

How many died due to hunger in East Germany, the only communist nation in Western Europe? None, as far as I know. Besides, communism can be beneficial or counterbeneficial depending on the initial conditions. Communism was undeniably beneficial for Central Asia - these nations achieved a higher level of development than their cross-border counterparts with similar initial conditions. Communism was undeniably counterbeneficial to some West and East European nations in the COMECON and WARPAC, because these nations achieved a lower level of development than their cross-border counterparts with similar initial conditions.

So you would agree that communism can be beneficial under a narrow set of circumstances, but would be counterbeneficial in highly developed societies?

A pattern of deportations, in my view, has been quite adequately established. In the 1920s boom in the USA mass immigration of Mexicans was made extremely easy by the government because they needed cheap labour for the construction industry. After the onset of the Great Depression, between one and two million Mexicans were deported, notwithstanding the fact many were either legal residents or had children who were born in the States. In 1953-1954 the US entered a costly recession. And lo, results were swift to come one: million illegals were deported. The current recession has resulted in tightening immigrant laws, revisions and actual expulsions all across Europe: France, Britain, etc.

Again, that seems to be more of a failing of the specific political system - including the lack of a social safety net - than a failure of capitalism. You assume that capitalism is such an exploitive and massive political ideology that it dictates such behavior - very well, then why do we not see this in Germany?

Capitalism is a much an economic system as ideology. Economic events like mass firings are quite relevant here, because they can happen under the economic system of capitalism (ideology regardless, be it nationalism, pan-Europeanism or something else).

As the recent proposals of Cuba (announcing major firings) and the misery of travelling workers in China show, neither are mass firings unique to capitalism, but also commonplace in communism then. Your system only seems to work that way when there is enough to go around - quite similar to capitalism then.

Social-democratic regimes also have ideological imperatives to introduce a measure of accountability, unlike their more right-wing counterparts. After all, political power over a capitalist system is likewise not a monolithic entity. However, I have yet to see any adequate reaction to the events that have transpired.

I do not see a reason to make any general observations about superiority based on single examples. After all, some territories in the USSR fared much better than others, and some COMECON nations had a much greater success with collectivization than the USSR. I don't make any general observations, because the failure in the USSR alone is a serious problem. So a lack of failure in other places does not validate universal acceptance of the policy. Likewise, a lack of some patterns of Industrial Revolution in Bismarckian Germany doesn't validate universal acceptance of capitalist industrialization as victimless.

In that case I submit the higher living standard across the board shows the superiority of capitalism, with the western Nations managing to proportionally raise the standard of living much higher than the communist countries.

If you do not accept that, then I would also submit that this once more does not prove the superiority of communism or that it is more beneficial than capitalism.

Where is any "excess" of capitalism? It is simply capitalism. Private property, exports, prices. Like I said, in pre-industrial socities the size of the harvest, prices and export volume balance singlehandedly determines food safety. Opression doesn't even factor in here.

I disagree. You take the worst excesses of capitalism and then use it to paint all other, differing systems of capitalism. By the same token, I might just as well argue that Stalinism represents communism par excellence, despite you arguing that core elements of it are not required for communism. Very well, but neither are famines required for capitalism. Using a German saying, it seems like you are currently "mit zweierlei Maß messen".

I think the point is not communist superiority. It is a difference in ideology. Communist ideology in post-Stalin days centered on technicism, scientific triumphs that will lead humanity to the stars, etc. When the USSR collapsed, the space race and scientific triumphs were put in the dust bin of history, because commercialization became more important across the entire world. Consumerism triumphed, and triumphed globally. As a result, long scientific projects with no clear commercial gains in sight related to fundamental science, exploration of space, etc. had their funding reduced. A general shift to short-sightedness, and preferrance of short-term, immediate benefits occured across the entire world, not being confined to a single nation. Both the USA and former USSR experienced major setbacks in further exploration of space, reduced funding, etc. Many scientific projects that could come to fruition never saw the light of day.

It is not related directly to some sort of moral superiorty of either ideology. However, the system which puts selling stuff in front of making stuff, which is today's capitalism, is related to this setback, because it occured during its universal triumph. It is very hard to sell space exploration, fundamental science, etc. - costs are incredibly large, often too large even for governments, not speaking of private entities, and benefits are uncertain and often lay far in the future, despite being possibly more significant and substantial than any short-term consumerist bullshit I'm going to buy at the shop tomorrow.

This of course disregards that the USSR itself limited its space program quite severely. No moon landing etc. The USSR conceded that field, and did so willingly. In fact, it looks like once the Americans beat them, they lost interest in major manned expeditions to other planets. Propaganda is one thing, but what major space expedition was the USSR seriously planning after Armstrong?

And I submit that slashing research projects has more to do with the current recession than with anything. If your choice is to fund schools or to fund Nasa, then you are going to pick the former. And I very much doubt that communism was that helpful to the sciences, considering that just conducting the wrong kind of study could land you in prison or worse.

[K. A. Pital]

If we do that, however, then the USSR, proportionally speaking, is one of the worst regimes in history, probably coming in right behind the British Empire (excluding the Mongols and various ancient empires). Hardly a good argument to make here for your position.

Belgium and it's shenangians in the Congo Free State alone, "proportionally speaking", are among the worst regimes in history, because they managed to halve the some 30-million strong population of the territory they controlled. Even the Nazis managed to kill only one third of the population of Belarus and overall around 15% of the population in the occupied territories (obviously, because they were stopped). However, Belgium is probably a nice example of what would happen if Nazis successfully "colonized" Eastern Europe. Belgium is a nice small European nation, ah-oh. Except, were we to talk about retribution, Belgium probably owes to give half of it's GDP to Congo for what they did. And that's just a small colonialist "excess" we're talking about, which was worse than the Soviet Union, "proportionally".

I meant the Soviet climate, as your argument was that the various climate differences bear a large fault in the various deaths compared to the Industrialization of Germany.

You mean people freezing to death on industrial projects in Russia wasn't a common problem for both industrial efforts during Tsarist times and later during Soviet efforts in the 1930s? Russia was and remains the coldest nation on Earth, on the average, and to be frank, the industrialization specifically targeted regions like the Urals, Far North, Far East and Siberia, which are even colder than the South and mid-West of Russia.

Minimal industrial support? Sorry, but when you manage to kill more people than all the other construction projects in the 19th century combined, then that is not just a sign of the circumstances, it speaks of callous disregard for the very people your ideology is supposed to protect the most.

Um... all other industrial and construction projects of the XIX century probably killed more people than the Soviet industrialization did. The Suez Canal alone killed more than the three main Soviet canals (Volga-Don, White Sea and Moscow Canal) and the Trans-polar railway combined.

I find it quite hard to follow this line of thought - yes, export was a prerequisite as well, but so was the drop in productivity. Unless there was none?

There was enough food inside the nation to prevent famine. So exports played a key role. A crop failure in 1932 was determined by droughts as well, not merely by collectivization. It was the export which caused the famine to proceed as it did.

So you would agree that communism can be beneficial under a narrow set of circumstances, but would be counterbeneficial in highly developed societies?

We haven't seen any "highly developed society" under communism. What if tomorrow the USA nationalized the entirety of their industry, making the GDP share of the state close to 100%? Would it suddenly cause a famine? No. Would the life standard increase or decrease? Probably neither, but there'd be more equality. So why is it suddenly "counterbeneficial"? If communists run your industrialization and your nation is agrarian, it might be beneficial or might be not. If communists come after industrialization is completed, their rule might be more beneficial than them trying to strapboot agrarian nations using a one-size-fits-all recipe. We have not seen communism occuring in more developed societies, so I'd refrain from making a judgement here.

Again, that seems to be more of a failing of the specific political system - including the lack of a social safety net - than a failure of capitalism. You assume that capitalism is such an exploitive and massive political ideology that it dictates such behavior - very well, then why do we not see this in Germany?

The large-scale of immigration of Turkish workers from the beginning of the 1960s was on the one hand, due to the high population growth and mass unemployment within Turkey, and on the other, due to the demand for labour in north-west Europe.[21] West Germany, like other Western European nations, began to experience a labour shortage by the mid-1950s.[22] Recruitment of workers from Mediterranean countries was one easy solution to this problem.[23] In 1961, the construction of the Berlin Wall exacerbated West Germany’s labour crisis by restricting the flow of immigrants from East Germany. Turkey at the same time experienced unemployment. The Turkish government asked Germany to recruit Turkish guest workers. Theodor Blank, Secretary of State for Employment, was opposed to such agreements, believing that the cultural gap between Germany and Turkey would be too large. He also argued that Germany needed no additional foreign laborers, because there were enough unemployed people living in the poorer regions of Germany who could take these jobs. The United States however, put some political pressure on Germany, as it wanted to stabilize Turkey. The German Department of Foreign Affairs carried on negotiations after this and in 1961 an agreement was reached.[24][25] Pressure from German employers in 1962 and 1963 played a key role in ending the two-year limit on the period for which Turkish workers were permitted to stay in West Germany.[26]

In 1961, a total of 7,116 Turks migrated to Germany as guest workers.[27] The recruitment treaty in 1961 made Germany the prime host country for Turkish guest workers and by 1973, some 80% of the Turks in Western Europe lived in Germany, and although this share had decreased to 70% by 1990, Germany remained by far the most important country of settlement for Turkish immigrants.[28] Most Turks were convinced that they would only stay in Germany temporarily and would one day return back to Turkey to build a new life for themselves with the money they had earned. During the recession of 1966-1967, the number of Turks leaving Germany instantaneously increased; and the 1973 oil crisis also marked a period of departure.[29] The last increase in departures in 1981-1984 was caused by mass unemployment in Germany and the policy of giving remigration bonuses to Turks who were willing to return to their homeland for good. Ultimately, however, the number of migrants who returned to Turkey remained relatively small and did not stop the rapid increase of the Turkish population in Germany.

A more benigh picture, but it does fit my view on the situation - economics, not politics, dictate whether it is time for migrants to leave or to stay. During economic crises, the situation is exacerbated and more attempts to get rid of immigrants occur. The level of severity of anti-immigrant measures is proportional to the severity of the crisis. But not in a linear fashion, since the system is a multi-factor equation.

As the recent proposals of Cuba (announcing major firings) and the misery of travelling workers in China show, neither are mass firings unique to capitalism, but also commonplace in communism then. Your system only seems to work that way when there is enough to go around - quite similar to capitalism then.

Cuba and China have embarked on capitalist reforms for quite a while. Neither pursues a policy of 100% employment that once characterizes socialist nations in and out of the COMECON. China has a free labour market where people are sold and bought according to supply and demand, they do not promise fixed employment for anyone. As for Cuba, one should check whether they still keep the 100% employment as a policy goal or not.

In that case I submit the higher living standard across the board shows the superiority of capitalism, with the western Nations managing to proportionally raise the standard of living much higher than the communist countries. If you do not accept that, then I would also submit that this once more does not prove the superiority of communism or that it is more beneficial than capitalism.

"Higher standard of living across the board"? The capitalist Third World constitutes an absolute majority of capitalist nations, whereas First World nations constitute an absolute minority, not just in numbers, but in population as well. So neither by sheer number of nations, nor by population under their control capitalism does not have a higher standard of living for a greater number of people. Raising the standard of living in Europe by making Egyptians dig you canals with forced labour for the sake of your trade and transport, while dying en masse, and pump out oil for you for $2 per day, perhaps might impress someone. I am duly unimpressed with such a simplistic analysis. Let's say Belgium is the best state on Earth, it's one of the nations with quite a high HDI and they were rich since god knows when. Oh wait, they also murdered half of Congo. But they are rich, so their's the laurels. *laughs* No, it does not work that way.

I disagree. You take the worst excesses of capitalism and then use it to paint all other, differing systems of capitalism. By the same token, I might just as well argue that Stalinism represents communism par excellence, despite you arguing that core elements of it are not required for communism. Very well, but neither are famines required for capitalism. Using a German saying, it seems like you are currently "mit zweierlei Maß messen".

Why am I measuring differently? It does not follow. If one accepts that Stalinism is part of communism, then one should logically accept that capitalist rule in less developed parts of the world is part of capitalism. I do not argue for the exclusion of Stalinism from communism's history, as you might notice. However, you argue for the exclusion of famines, "uncomfy" industrial projects with lots of dead from the history of capitalism. I say that it is prudent to include the victims of Stalinism and remember that Soviet industrialization was, indeed, bloody. You say that it is better to ignore the British, French, whatever, anyone who is not perfect, and center on, why! - Germany, which "had it right", and this proves "capitalist industrialization does not require death tolls". My pardon, but you have excluded a vast majority of capitalist nations, including the nations which first made a transition to capitalism, in favor of Germany, simply because German industrialization wasn't as bloody. What stops me from basically excluding Stalin's USSR and saying that Yugoslavia represents a good model case? No famines; fast and relatively victimless industrialization; HDI growth tempoes in the 1960-1980 were higher than both First and Second World nations alike. But that would be fundamentally dishonest. So I try to look at the bigger picture.

This of course disregards that the USSR itself limited its space program quite severely. No moon landing etc. The USSR conceded that field, and did so willingly. In fact, it looks like once the Americans beat them, they lost interest in major manned expeditions to other planets. Propaganda is one thing, but what major space expedition was the USSR seriously planning after Armstrong? And I submit that slashing research projects has more to do with the current recession than with anything. If your choice is to fund schools or to fund Nasa, then you are going to pick the former. And I very much doubt that communism was that helpful to the sciences, considering that just conducting the wrong kind of study could land you in prison or worse.

The USSR saw that landing humans on the Moon would look a repeat of the same feat after Americans accomplished it. I don't think the USSR expected the US to curtail their Moon program so rapidly. In fact, the USSR was looking at long-term projects like Mars missions and possibly a Moon habitat. The goals for space programs of the 2000s (planned in the late 1980s) were quite ambitious. Manned landing on Mars by 2015, etc. The Soviet series of probe missions to Venus remains until this day one of the most extensive studies of this planet ever undertaken by humanity, and this was done after American Moon landing. The USSR built a universal 100-ton to LEO-capable rocket (Energia) which was not only to be used for the orbiter like Buran, but also for possible launches of spacecraft and even parts of long-term habitation modules to the Moon (and possibly to Mars). On the other hand, Americans built the Space Shuttle - a system which was by design not capable for any interplanetary missions, only for Earth-to-orbit deliveries. The difference in approach is pretty striking, if you ask me.

Finally, communism was obviously beneficial for sciences in Russia, even considering the damage done to science in Stalin's day, because it created a scientifically literate society which had an impressive record of hard science achievements. Doing the wrong kind of study could only land you "in prison" in Stalin's times because the rival school of thought could have reported you to the authorities for embezzlement. After Stalin's times, the sciences were no longer hampered by rival schools trying to literally annihilate each other. Lysenko was retired, but he didn't "land in jail". A pseudoscience committee in the Academy of Sciences was formed, which served us relatively well until this very day (right now it exposed some members of the Parliament being complicit in selling pseudoscience junk in a fraud scheme to make money).

Rigid scientific method in hard sciences these days is basically thrown away, the quality of hard science education has massively declined, pseudoscience openly triumphs not just in schools but even creeps into universities and academies. Yet, now Russia has capitalism. Capitalism is not conducive to science in and of itself. Secularism is conducive to the development of hard sciences.

[Shroom Man 777]

The oppressive periods of Western capitalist nations lasted longer than the entire existences of most communist nations.

[Simon_Jester]

Um, what?

[Akhlut]

Um, what?

British colonialism in India lasted from the late 18th century until 1948, most Communist nations have lasted less then a century.

[Shroom Man 777]

Like I said previously, the institution of slavery in the USA lasted for two decades longer than the USSR's entire existence.

The Spanish colonization of the Feelipeens alone was longer than four Soviet Unions!

FOUR SOVIET UNIONS!

[K. A. Pital]

I'll need to save this argument for later on, so I'll bump this up now and save it later.

[Bluewolf]

This thread should be split up and the Thanas/Stas posts put in History. I find this debate quite intresting and it deserves more than to be in Testing.