[9V4i8xw1]

Ecthy, elaborate the differences please.

[soyclocky]

Well, had they used force to sustain the regime during the recession, they would be in a good position today, with rising energy prices.

Communist economies are sustainable - the SU enjoyed many years of growth after WWII.

[PekHyvac]

I think a better hypo would be if capitalism had never been invented, i.e. if humanity were ignorant of the economy's ability to harness the ingenuity of the individual.

Then, IMHO, Communism would have been a viable system. It benefitted more people that the ancient system of aristocratic overlords and/or mechantile cartels.

[Enladalusange]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Communist economies are sustainable - the SU enjoyed many years of growth after WWII. Not sure if that's a good argument, post war growth even for a longer time was not surprising given the situation of vast losses in material and infrastructure that needed to be replaced/rebuilt and also that Sov was already in the process of deeper industrialization pre-war and still had lots of untouched space and resources to continue to expand in some way for a while.

But I'll happily admit that I'm not the best guy for economic discussions.

[Stainditnew]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
I think a better hypo would be if capitalism had never been invented, i.e. if humanity were ignorant of the economy's ability to harness the ingenuity of the individual. The truth is that our economic achievements were made possible by improved scientific technique. When technology was such that 80-90% of the population had to work in the fields, there was little room for research.

You attribute scientific progress to capitalism, but it's the other way around - a slow scientific progress eventually made capitalism possible.

[Talicoabilk]

No ****, Sherlock. I lived there, remember?

[DoctoBuntonTen]

Marx would argue that Communism would not have existed in those circumstances at all.

Communism doesn't arise in a vacuum.

[Sipewrio]

Originally posted by VetLegion
Soviet Union fell apart in a sequence of events in which falling oil prices, food shortage and reluctance of the leadership to use force all played a role. It wasn't all of those things as much as it was a Peak Oil situation within the system.
It is today thought that this breakup is the definitive proof of unsustainibility of communist economies in the long run.

But is it? Would SU have been replaced by a capitalist economy if examples of successful capitalist economies weren't around? I don't think switching to a capitalist economy had much to do with examples of successfull capitalist economies in the world. The communist economy was an oligopoly, and at that point at capitalist economy better served the oligarchy. But it's not like the capitalist economy did any better.
What if Europe and the US (+Canada) had been depopulated because of some plague and in 1990 the only alternatives to hardcore communism of the SU were softcore communism of Latin America, Chinese state capitalism, Arab monarchies and a bunch of nominally capitalist failed states in Africa and Asia?

If we take the West out of the equation Russia was more advanced than any other country in the world.

In such hypothetical situation would crises-induced reforms take the SU towards capitalism or not?

Utlimately, did SU fall apart because its economy couldn't weather the last crisis and resume growth or because the political class lost faith in the system because there actually existed a better alternative? There my have been a switch to capitalism anyway because of the crisis, because as stated, that served the political class better.

[bikersfan]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


If you don't see the difference between Marx' writings and the actual Soviet regime, you're hopeless. If you don't see the inevitable devolution of marxist pablum to soviet style communism/cult of personality....

[ddxbovMQ]

Imagine you're a contestant on Iron Chef. You have a radical new and improved way to cook a meal, but you can't afford a whole staff. Morimoto has a whole kitchen staff. Now, if you method works, Morimoto's out of a job, so he sends some of his staff over to mess up your kitchen. He also bribes some of your staff to screw things up and he tells the rest of your staff he's going to pay them more if they come over to work for him.

Does your failure mean your method was wrong or incapable of working?

[jeockammece]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


If you don't see the inevitable devolution of marxist pablum to soviet style communism/cult of personality.... The first generation of leaders after a revolution are often revered. Think about Washington.

[southernplayer99]

President for essentially life... right. No cult of personality there.

[TOPERink]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


The first generation of leaders after a revolution are often revered. Think about Washington. Rightly so because he did the one thing none of the (communistic) others would. Limitted his own power and set precedent of others in the US to do the same. Unlike communism where in it is expected that governemental reach is ominpresent.

[BruceQW]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Kinda like George Washington. 2 terms life.

[rootoronpunty]

Washington could have been King, had he wanted. The economic system had fork all to do with it. In Europe, Latin America, and elsewhere, those who led the struggles for independence were leaders for life and are still revered today.

[Donlupedron]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Washington could have been King, had he wanted. The economic system had fork all to do with it. QFT

[flowersnewacq]

Also as king he could have named his Raulian like successor. So far as I can tell there hasn't been another King Washington since King George the first.

[globjgtyf]

I wasn't the one who brought Washington in as a cult of personailty figure, that was Che.

But that aside he figures significantly better as a role for good moral governance vs. The God-like Castro bros.

[Wdlglivi]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Also as king he could have named his Raulian like successor. So far as I can tell there hasn't been another King Washington since King George the first. Fidel didn't name his successor anymore than Nixon named his successor when he resigned. There's a constitutional order in Cuba that was followed.

[bestonlinepharmasy2]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I can't believe that you still don't understand that that is irrelevant to the point you were trying to make. The point that there has yet to be an example of communistic system that hasn't devlolved into a dictatorial system enshrining the leader with far too much power as opposed to the failed arguing that Washington was the same. Yes I see all too well.