4 ms·

Because it wasn't socialism. It was a centrally planned capitalist economy. There were still commodity production, accumulation of value and a State that regula

Because it wasn't socialism. It was a centrally planned capitalist economy. There were still commodity production, accumulation of value and a State that regulates value. The only way in which USSR and the Eastern Block was socialist is the way they called themselves. If they called themselves aliens, it would make about the same sense. Even Lenin called the system "State Capitalism" in his works. Socialism in the classic Marxist sense -- which is the exact same thing as communism, communism/socialism divide nonsense comes from Stalin and makes no sense -- is the society after capitalist economy collapses, and the natural force that makes capitalism possible is value generation. It's simply by-definition not possible to talk about socialism in a society that still has value (money), the division of labor (job), class (worker vs employer) and state (a body that regulates trade which is integral to capitalism). Marxism is above all materialism and ideologies like Marxism-Leninism is the most anti-Marxist thing imaginable.

vibrato 8y ago
How many millions need to die before you’re convinced the problem isn’t mere implementation details?
- prolikewh0a 8y ago
  How many millions need to die around the world every single year from global Capitalism before you're convinced this isn't a good system? The whole "how many people needed to die due to Communism" is a poor argument when Capitalism has without a doubt killed far more people since the industrial revolution.
  - vibrato 8y ago
    Thanks to capitalism, TOTAL numbers of people living in poverty are decreasing at an unprecedented rate. Every global measure we look at shows quality of life improvements like this, as capitalism and democracy have spread. https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty Also, I do regard starving and enslaving constituents as much worse ethically than conquering another tribe or nation.
    - gnulinux 8y ago
      What people continuously insist on not understanding (both self-claimed socialists and capitalists) is that capitalism is supposed to be much better than earlier systems. This is the central argument of Marx. He claims the world is in a never-ending struggle between social classes. It's very obvious that capitalism is better than older systems because it's the product of earlier conflicts; so your argument does not mean anything to me. The idea is to make it even better.
    - prolikewh0a 8y ago
      Thanks to Capitalism, those people were put into extreme poverty in the first place. How many millions need to continue dying from poverty, war, and poor hygiene for Capitalism to get the same nonsense thrown at it? It's only $30 billion a year to end world hunger, but world capitalism won't step up to the plate, instead spending it on new military toys to bomb those people in extreme poverty. How much food is wasted on top of that? http://www.fao.org/NEWSROOM/en/news/2008/1000853/index.html http://www.fao.org/NEWSROOM/en/news/2008/1000853/index.html
    - AnarchoYeasty 8y ago
      No capitalism has not brought millions out of poverty. Here is why: https://youtu.be/A6VqV1T4uYs https://youtu.be/A6VqV1T4uYs edit: Ok downvote me if you want, it doesn't change the truth that your data is built off of lies. I though HN prides ourselves on not falling for stupid manipulations of data, like the very charts you are pointing to.
    - kazinator 8y ago
      It's not pure, unbridled capitalism, though.
  - gnulinux 8y ago
    Uh... I'm convinced that you both are very wrong (both you and the comment you're replying to). We approach to this problem entirely wrong. Nobody needs to be convinced that capitalism is bad or socialism is good, or that socialism kills people or whatever. This sort of ideological/political discourses that usually emphasize Great Men (like politicians who convince people best about why capitalism is good/bad) are the very center of the problem of both (1) authoritarian governments like USSR killing people (2) social injustice killing people. The real real problem is always the actual materialistic forces that drive people. I'm a software engineer because I like the job, it pays very well and lets me live comfortably. I got this job because my family was rich enough to send me to university where I studied CS. When you're talking about the inequality between me and a poor person, this is the real difference, not my ideology or a poor person's ideology. This fundamentally means that ideologies -- authoritarian or not -- like Marxism-Leninism are not an answer to the real problem, nor is talking to people about your religion, Jesus Christ or evil capitalism. The heart of the problem, as always if the material conditions in which people live, the condition of the workers.
    - vibrato 8y ago
      The problem you've identified can only be addressed at the individual level, which socialism eliminates as a possibility because there is no individual, only group identity.
      - AnarchoYeasty 8y ago
        LMAO you have no idea what you are talking about. It's funny how you just accept Western propaganda as truth.
  - ozim 8y ago
    Still better death than being dragged out of house in the middle of night to work in gulag and end up getting shot in the back of ones head. In this nasty capitalism you can at least have hope, in soviet union there was no hope.
    - prolikewh0a 8y ago
      >In this nasty capitalism you can at least have hope, in soviet union there was no hope. Any evidence to back either of these claims up?
      - waynecochran 8y ago
        Yes. Go read The Gulag Archipelago. The ignorance of those comparing Stalinist USSR to modern capitalism is astounding.
        prolikewh0a 8y ago
        I think the ignorance is on you for not knowing the USA & allies version of Capitalism has killed far more people since WW2 than Stalin could've ever dreamed of, most of those wars unjustified and based on lies. Now add in poverty, drug addiction, preventable deaths from lack of health insurance, slave trade in Libya, refugees from wars we created, etc. This is far more destructive, but it's ok to not criticize it because you probably live cozy.
- kazinator 8y ago
  Furthermore, even if it is implementation details, maybe the implementations we have had so far are the best that humanity can do. I would argue that the True Scotsman's communism is actually worse than the flawed implementations. It is complete garbage. The fact that there could exist a privileged class within communist societies, a class that had better access to higher grade goods, education and everything else, was actually an improvement. It gave people something to strive for: get in with the right people, to get the kids better schooling, and so on. People need that; nobody who is capable of hustling wants to be equal to a sloth who rest on his laurels.
- dang 8y ago
  Ideological flamewar is tedious and off topic here. An open internet forum will never have anything new or interesting to say about any of this; it will simply reset Groundhog Flamewar Day. Therefore, please don't do this on HN. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

vibrato 8y ago

How many millions need to die before you’re convinced the problem isn’t mere implementation details?

prolikewh0a 8y ago
How many millions need to die around the world every single year from global Capitalism before you're convinced this isn't a good system? The whole "how many people needed to die due to Communism" is a poor argument when Capitalism has without a doubt killed far more people since the industrial revolution.
- vibrato 8y ago
  Thanks to capitalism, TOTAL numbers of people living in poverty are decreasing at an unprecedented rate. Every global measure we look at shows quality of life improvements like this, as capitalism and democracy have spread. https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty Also, I do regard starving and enslaving constituents as much worse ethically than conquering another tribe or nation.
  - gnulinux 8y ago
    What people continuously insist on not understanding (both self-claimed socialists and capitalists) is that capitalism is supposed to be much better than earlier systems. This is the central argument of Marx. He claims the world is in a never-ending struggle between social classes. It's very obvious that capitalism is better than older systems because it's the product of earlier conflicts; so your argument does not mean anything to me. The idea is to make it even better.
  - prolikewh0a 8y ago
    Thanks to Capitalism, those people were put into extreme poverty in the first place. How many millions need to continue dying from poverty, war, and poor hygiene for Capitalism to get the same nonsense thrown at it? It's only $30 billion a year to end world hunger, but world capitalism won't step up to the plate, instead spending it on new military toys to bomb those people in extreme poverty. How much food is wasted on top of that? http://www.fao.org/NEWSROOM/en/news/2008/1000853/index.html http://www.fao.org/NEWSROOM/en/news/2008/1000853/index.html
  - AnarchoYeasty 8y ago
    No capitalism has not brought millions out of poverty. Here is why: https://youtu.be/A6VqV1T4uYs https://youtu.be/A6VqV1T4uYs edit: Ok downvote me if you want, it doesn't change the truth that your data is built off of lies. I though HN prides ourselves on not falling for stupid manipulations of data, like the very charts you are pointing to.
  - kazinator 8y ago
    It's not pure, unbridled capitalism, though.
- gnulinux 8y ago
  Uh... I'm convinced that you both are very wrong (both you and the comment you're replying to). We approach to this problem entirely wrong. Nobody needs to be convinced that capitalism is bad or socialism is good, or that socialism kills people or whatever. This sort of ideological/political discourses that usually emphasize Great Men (like politicians who convince people best about why capitalism is good/bad) are the very center of the problem of both (1) authoritarian governments like USSR killing people (2) social injustice killing people. The real real problem is always the actual materialistic forces that drive people. I'm a software engineer because I like the job, it pays very well and lets me live comfortably. I got this job because my family was rich enough to send me to university where I studied CS. When you're talking about the inequality between me and a poor person, this is the real difference, not my ideology or a poor person's ideology. This fundamentally means that ideologies -- authoritarian or not -- like Marxism-Leninism are not an answer to the real problem, nor is talking to people about your religion, Jesus Christ or evil capitalism. The heart of the problem, as always if the material conditions in which people live, the condition of the workers.
  - vibrato 8y ago
    The problem you've identified can only be addressed at the individual level, which socialism eliminates as a possibility because there is no individual, only group identity.
    - AnarchoYeasty 8y ago
      LMAO you have no idea what you are talking about. It's funny how you just accept Western propaganda as truth.
- ozim 8y ago
  Still better death than being dragged out of house in the middle of night to work in gulag and end up getting shot in the back of ones head. In this nasty capitalism you can at least have hope, in soviet union there was no hope.
  - prolikewh0a 8y ago
    >In this nasty capitalism you can at least have hope, in soviet union there was no hope. Any evidence to back either of these claims up?
    - waynecochran 8y ago
      Yes. Go read The Gulag Archipelago. The ignorance of those comparing Stalinist USSR to modern capitalism is astounding.
      - prolikewh0a 8y ago
        I think the ignorance is on you for not knowing the USA & allies version of Capitalism has killed far more people since WW2 than Stalin could've ever dreamed of, most of those wars unjustified and based on lies. Now add in poverty, drug addiction, preventable deaths from lack of health insurance, slave trade in Libya, refugees from wars we created, etc. This is far more destructive, but it's ok to not criticize it because you probably live cozy.
kazinator 8y ago
Furthermore, even if it is implementation details, maybe the implementations we have had so far are the best that humanity can do. I would argue that the True Scotsman's communism is actually worse than the flawed implementations. It is complete garbage. The fact that there could exist a privileged class within communist societies, a class that had better access to higher grade goods, education and everything else, was actually an improvement. It gave people something to strive for: get in with the right people, to get the kids better schooling, and so on. People need that; nobody who is capable of hustling wants to be equal to a sloth who rest on his laurels.
dang 8y ago
Ideological flamewar is tedious and off topic here. An open internet forum will never have anything new or interesting to say about any of this; it will simply reset Groundhog Flamewar Day. Therefore, please don't do this on HN. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html