3 ms·

Marginally ? Have you seen anarchy ? You get warlords, feudalism, that kind of stuff (see Somalia). I'm assuming the writer lives in the US; I think he greatly

by okaram 13y ago

Marginally ? Have you seen anarchy ? You get warlords, feudalism, that kind of stuff (see Somalia). I'm assuming the writer lives in the US; I think he greatly exaggerates the issues; the system works; most people live with enough food, enough necessities and without the threat of violence; we CAN make it better, but I'd much rather improve on it than try to come up with a new one. BTW, I haven't seen ANY system that works wholesale better than ours; have y'all ?

stefantalpalaru 13y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism
scarmig 13y ago
Low standards. The post Stalin Soviet Union also provided everything you mentioned. But I'm not happy to be a serf, even if a serf who is likely to have enough gruel for a comfortable existence. What's better? I don't presume to be able to build a new society from the fount of my head. But relentless, diverse experimentation, and creating the space for that experimentation, seems like a solid approach to me.
- pdonis 13y ago
  The post Stalin Soviet Union also provided everything you mentioned. No, it didn't, at least not on its own. Even post-Stalin, the Soviet Union couldn't feed its people from its own resources; it relied on large food imports from other countries (including the US). And it still relied on violence to keep people in line, just not as overtly as Stalin did.
  - scarmig 13y ago
    It couldn't feed people on its own, except by manufacturing goods and trading them for food? That's hardly damning of the USSR (though it certainly is worthy of damnation, for other reasons); other countries do the same thing now, for both agricultural and manufactured goods. The point is, people had enough food to survive, which is the point I was addressing. Similarly, you could avoid state violence by accepting the system without complaint. A terrible way to eke out an existence, but not a difficult one if you have low expectations of human dignity.
    - pdonis 13y ago
      It couldn't feed people on its own, except by manufacturing goods and trading them for food? Where did I say it got food from the US (and other countries) by trading manufactured goods? How many Soviet manufactured goods do you remember seeing in Western countries? What the Soviet Union actually "traded" for food was concessions on treaty issues like nuclear weapons. Which was particularly convenient for them since most of what they conceded was not actually verifiable, so the "concessions" amounted to making promises they had no intention of keeping, in exchange for actual stuff. The point is, people had enough food to survive, which is the point I was addressing. No, the point you were addressing was that the system in which the people lived was able to provide for them, which was not true of the Soviet Union. If the West had not agreed to play the USSR's con game of trading non-verifiable concessions for actual stuff for decades, the USSR would have collapsed a lot sooner than it did.
      - scarmig 13y ago
        You have a very mistaken view of Soviet trade, if you think "we promise not to develop nuclear weapons, if you give us grain!" It's wishful thinking, akin to a leftist claims that the USA gets all its manufactured goods by enslaving developing countries. The Soviet Union imported large amounts of grain due to a deeply broken agricultural system, which I believe we're in full agreement on. But this wasn't in exchange for merely making unverifiable promises to the West (why would the United States have agreed to that, even?). Much trade was with other socialist countries, for one. And although Western countries received few Soviet manufactured goods, they, then as now, imported large quantities of Soviet commodities, particularly oil and natural gas. Indeed, its reliance on oil for hard cash is what led in part to its downfall, as oil prices collapsed in the 80s, putting significant strains on the system as the pie got much smaller while more and more resources were needed to satisfy rising consumer demands and ill-conceived land wars in Asia.
        pdonis 13y ago
        It's wishful thinking I'll admit such a view is simplistic, yes. However, I think it played more of a role than you appear to believe it did. Much trade was with other socialist countries, for one. I'm not sure this makes much difference, since those other countries were just as messed up. (I also have a hard time taking any numbers that can be found for this at face value anyway, just as I am skeptical of pretty much any numbers that were internally generated by Eastern Bloc countries. Not that Western countries' numbers are miracles of accuracy either, but at least they get a lot more independent checking because the underlying data is more easily available.) And although Western countries received few Soviet manufactured goods In other words, you agree with me that this was not a significant factor. Ok. they, then as now, imported large quantities of Soviet commodities, particularly oil and natural gas I agree that the West got large quantities of oil and natural gas from the USSR; the question is, at what prices? And at what prices did we sell them grain and other foodstuffs in return? I suspect that the respective answers are "high prices" and "low prices"; the trades were not ordinary free market trades because of the political factors involved.

by okaram 13y ago

stefantalpalaru 13y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

scarmig 13y ago

Low standards. The post Stalin Soviet Union also provided everything you mentioned. But I'm not happy to be a serf, even if a serf who is likely to have enough gruel for a comfortable existence. What's better? I don't presume to be able to build a new society from the fount of my head. But relentless, diverse experimentation, and creating the space for that experimentation, seems like a solid approach to me.

pdonis 13y ago
The post Stalin Soviet Union also provided everything you mentioned. No, it didn't, at least not on its own. Even post-Stalin, the Soviet Union couldn't feed its people from its own resources; it relied on large food imports from other countries (including the US). And it still relied on violence to keep people in line, just not as overtly as Stalin did.
- scarmig 13y ago
  It couldn't feed people on its own, except by manufacturing goods and trading them for food? That's hardly damning of the USSR (though it certainly is worthy of damnation, for other reasons); other countries do the same thing now, for both agricultural and manufactured goods. The point is, people had enough food to survive, which is the point I was addressing. Similarly, you could avoid state violence by accepting the system without complaint. A terrible way to eke out an existence, but not a difficult one if you have low expectations of human dignity.
  - pdonis 13y ago
    It couldn't feed people on its own, except by manufacturing goods and trading them for food? Where did I say it got food from the US (and other countries) by trading manufactured goods? How many Soviet manufactured goods do you remember seeing in Western countries? What the Soviet Union actually "traded" for food was concessions on treaty issues like nuclear weapons. Which was particularly convenient for them since most of what they conceded was not actually verifiable, so the "concessions" amounted to making promises they had no intention of keeping, in exchange for actual stuff. The point is, people had enough food to survive, which is the point I was addressing. No, the point you were addressing was that the system in which the people lived was able to provide for them, which was not true of the Soviet Union. If the West had not agreed to play the USSR's con game of trading non-verifiable concessions for actual stuff for decades, the USSR would have collapsed a lot sooner than it did.
    - scarmig 13y ago
      You have a very mistaken view of Soviet trade, if you think "we promise not to develop nuclear weapons, if you give us grain!" It's wishful thinking, akin to a leftist claims that the USA gets all its manufactured goods by enslaving developing countries. The Soviet Union imported large amounts of grain due to a deeply broken agricultural system, which I believe we're in full agreement on. But this wasn't in exchange for merely making unverifiable promises to the West (why would the United States have agreed to that, even?). Much trade was with other socialist countries, for one. And although Western countries received few Soviet manufactured goods, they, then as now, imported large quantities of Soviet commodities, particularly oil and natural gas. Indeed, its reliance on oil for hard cash is what led in part to its downfall, as oil prices collapsed in the 80s, putting significant strains on the system as the pie got much smaller while more and more resources were needed to satisfy rising consumer demands and ill-conceived land wars in Asia.
      - pdonis 13y ago
        It's wishful thinking I'll admit such a view is simplistic, yes. However, I think it played more of a role than you appear to believe it did. Much trade was with other socialist countries, for one. I'm not sure this makes much difference, since those other countries were just as messed up. (I also have a hard time taking any numbers that can be found for this at face value anyway, just as I am skeptical of pretty much any numbers that were internally generated by Eastern Bloc countries. Not that Western countries' numbers are miracles of accuracy either, but at least they get a lot more independent checking because the underlying data is more easily available.) And although Western countries received few Soviet manufactured goods In other words, you agree with me that this was not a significant factor. Ok. they, then as now, imported large quantities of Soviet commodities, particularly oil and natural gas I agree that the West got large quantities of oil and natural gas from the USSR; the question is, at what prices? And at what prices did we sell them grain and other foodstuffs in return? I suspect that the respective answers are "high prices" and "low prices"; the trades were not ordinary free market trades because of the political factors involved.