Anecdotal Evidence. You might be perfectly content, but I'm talking about the average person.

1. In what ay do I need to be more specific about the German/Dutch Left-Communist current.

2. If a non-communist does not know what I am talking about they can gladly go look it up an learn something.

3. If a communist doesn't know what I'm talking about, well I quite frankly would question their 'communism'.

4. Where did I ever write that the state has no role in the transition of society? Your quoting of the manifesto to prove a non-point to myself is of no use.

not exactly. the government will just not be able to run these businesses. this allowing people to choose whatever they want to do. smoke weed, eat a burger, listen to metal, watch violent movies, play violent video games, go on any site on the internet despite the politics behind it (including CD). if you mean the businesses control us because we need them, that can be the same argument for a nanny state. at least with corporations, we choose which one we want, creating competition. the problem with the government running things is that it's harder for governments to create competition for the civilians.

Great facts on Cuba.

But in the end your definition confuses what capitalism really is.

The U.S. isn't purely capitalist. And europe isn't purely socialist. In fact, Europe is pretty damn capitalist (not as much as the U.S.).

That's because capitalism is not a form of government. It's a type of economic system that can be used within any government (socialist or democratic).

Capitalism is the way you make money. It's not how you govern.

China, for example, has opened up to a much more capitalist, free-market structure. Thanks to that, th Chinese economy is flourishing. Yet, they are still communist. Europe, is now allowing many capitalist principles in the way their economy is stuctured as well.

Let's not forget that had it not been for capitalism, industrialization may have never happened. That means we probably wouldn't even be arguing this because there'd be no computers and we'd have probably died from yet another plague.

The fact that you think Cuba is honest in how it reports statistics is sad commentary on your comprehension of communism.

Have you ever been to cuba? How about any country that is opressed by a dictator? I've been to Korea and I know the pretty piture they paint for you. They want you to believe that everything on their side of the fence is better and that their people are being taken care of. Sure they have sky scrapers apartments, but they have no running water and no electricity. That means that they have to fetch water and cary the pails up hundreds of stairs. I don't look at water and electricity as luxeries I see them as a nessessity. How can our world have the technology that is has to create power for the entire world but yet deprive your own country. North Koreans are not able to talk to their families in South Korea. Kim Yong-IL knows that ignorance is bliss and that knowledge is power. The Berlin wall was not bulit to keep people out... besides by even suggesting that Socilaism/ Communism is economicly better suggests that you also agree with Genocide. Rethink your stance on life and how American's and Capitalist don't charish it. The next time your in a Commie country think about staying.

Before I begin, it's necessary to note that whether or not the specific statements I made are accurate, you entirely missed the point of my reply. The only point I was making was that one should accept or reject capitalism on a scientific and theoretical basis, rather than appeals to emotion and subjectivity which can obviously be bent and contrived to support any ideology, and have no instrinsic baring on macro-economics, so much as it is propraganda and misconception.

The ignorance of the Soviet Union you display is deep and profound (and in so few words!) -- Of the criminal poverty the majority of the soviet people lived; of the incessant tyranny and stagnation -- and of the only relief coming from underground markets, and ultimately the sweeping reforms after the Union collapsed from what was in essense natural summation of a brute communist system. Following the liberalization (ie. capitalization) of the reforms, millions of Russians and eastern europeans have been raised out of poverty, and their prospering economy has raised the average wages and income of a Russian by 50%, and it continues to go up.

To begin, the Soviet Union's living standards didn't begin to improve until the "Khrushchev Thaw", essentially a liberalization reform which gave the dramatically more freedom to move and trade, and a host of other things like the uncensoring of books and integration into the international community. This increased their social freedoms, as well as their economic freedom, especially for the desitute peasents who immediately migrated after their liberation. It was in essense and intent a de-Stalinization, but not only did it weaken the grip of totalitarianism, but also of the Communist party which began to weaken thereafter. I bring this up because to speak of a "standards of living" in parity with the US in a Pre-Khrushchev USSR would be a henious absurdity. Even if their incomes were comparable (and they weren't nearly) they would have been worthless under a Stalin.

This does not mean that all was merry. Workers were still enormously underpaid and Khrushchevs attempt to ballance it with a minimum wage was too little and too late. These reforms were short lived, for when Brezhnev stepped in and stagnation ensued the hopes that the USSR could be formidable and free under increasingly liberal policy were squelched. The poverty that the majority of the Soviet Union suffered (not enjoyed as you'd liked to say) through it history was not vanquished until it's collapse and the sweeping economic reforms that necessarily followed.

As mentioned ealier, Russia and other post Soviet countries didn't fully adopt the reforms necessary for productivity and at first was very lopsided, which was amplified by what economist call a "transition recession", but when this subsided the capitalist system took effect and since the countries of Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union experienced a productivity surge that over the past decade has driven up the living standards and reduced poverty. The difference this time, was that the growth the newly liberalized societies amassed was legitimate instead of the brute force growth of traditional communist economies.

A reccent study done by the World Bank on the topic has found that from 1999-2007 income per capita has raised more than 50%, while lifting 50 million people out of poverty (which is an illustration of what Jeffery Sach's wants to see in the poorest parts of Africa.)

“The transition from centrally planned to market economies has freed up an entrepreneurial energy that always existed, but rarely had the chance to make itself felt,” said Shigeo Katsu, Vice-President for the World Bank’s Europe and Central Asia Region. “The rise in productivity in the region has brought higher sales and more profits to businesses so they can pay more in wages and invest in new technologies. At the same time, it is critical that the countries of the region do not relax, but rather, build on this success and become even more productive, thus competitive, so that they can achieve their aspiration of catching up with Western European living standards.”

In light of the scientific data and historical context, the first true taste of social freedom were the liberal reforms of the USSR's "Thaw", and Yeltsin's call for Russian normalcy, ie. democracy and a market economy. Russia and Poland etc. are still in the shadow of the United States (by the way, your use of parity is practically criminal) but they are begining to catch up as the straight jacket of the socialist system is shed.

I still have one question. How could you be so wrong? The USSR is the, in matter of fact, an excellent example of the powers of Capitalism! The irony! Knowing, from our previous discussions, that your research is normally very superficial and dogmatically misinterpreted, it is not surprising that you mistake the USSRs comparable growth with the United States as meaning similar living standards. The fallacy is in not recongizing how artificial growth is in a socialist system. It is necessarily forced by the state, and doesn't correlate with the wealth of the people. GDP per capita is used by level headed economists for understanding the wealth of a market economy. Put differently, economic growth in a capitalist system and a socialist system is a false analogy.

Russia and the former USSR is just one case study. Poverty has dropped, and income raised in India, China, Chile, Bolivia, all of the former USSR like Poland and Russia, after the transition to a predominately capitalist system.

Cuba is another case which I could write twice as much about as I have for the Soviet Union, however I'll avoid boring you. Instead I'll make it short and simply. You are false. The living standards in Cuba for the overwhelming majority is virtual desitution. It is a sign of both your ignorance and desperation to state otherwise. Cubans deal perpetually with food rations that are always too little and (unless you like rice) are bland and empty in nutrience. The average Cuban normally goes to bed hungry. It is not at all comparable to the United States in this aspect. The average Cuban lives on about 8 dollars a day (a MacDonalds like Hamburger is $3 dollars there according to one site).

I could literally go on for pages about the deplorable conditions of the average Cuban, but it would be belabouring. Any knowledable person should be aware of what life in communist Cuba is like (it wasn't dramatically beter before the sanctions either.) It is miserable. And to say its "in parity" with the US is sickening stupidity. The poorest of the poor in America are better off than the average Cuban, both in living standards and potential opportunity. I shouldn't have to explain these things to you.

On the United States: It is a correlation = causation fallacy to say that the US is booming because it is increasingly "socialistic" (which is an infantile term for what it is). The US has always, save the depression and the odd recession, been in steady economic growth. It is mere accident that new deal ("socialist") politics and the industrial boom of the second world war coincided. There have been innumerable studies showing that the New Deal had practically nothing to do with Americas booming economy, and if anything stifled it. As for other shifts towards welfare etc., they have been more or less failures, such as Social Security; public education; transportation like Amtrak; welfare (the negative effects have been partly reversed since reforms); exessive money printing causing stagflation; creating bubbles (including the housing fiasco); piling debts; corporate welfare ie. subsidization; public housing; affirmative action; gun control; and the list of failures goes on. The U.S. economy, however, is very resillient and has grown despite these obstacles that have empirically done nothing to help.

I think I'll stop here, for I've given you enough to chew on. I will only say on the subject of Venezuela, that you have an incredibly simplistic view of their economy. Venezuela is facing many problems but their main sucess is not due to their socialism -- on the contrary: that's the root of its problems (inflation; concentrated power; shortages; volitility). Its sucesses, however, can be positively aligned with Venezuela's state capitalism, ie. a command control economy based on market principles. It could be called a mixed economy, but that is misleading. However, if you are going to reply (and you no doubt will), lets keep this short. At least shorter than my long windedness. That just means you don't have to reply to all of this at once.

How ridiculous. Chavez and Castro exercise sole and complete control over the army and police. How does that promote personal freedom, democracy or anything positive? Their states are just as totalitarian as the USSR and North Korea. Chavez has improved his nation's prosperity by stealing . . . I mean nationalizing, assets of US Corporations which would never have existed in his country without capitalism in ours.

Cuba's standard of living is skewed upwards by high literacy and good health care. The financial situation is a disaster since the Soviets stopped subsidizing the economy in 1990. Buying power of the average Cuban is negligible by US standards. If the US was wiling to destroy our financial structure as Cuba has, we could elevate any of our problem areas too. If our infrastructure was in the state of Cuba's, we could pump all of that money into our schools or health care systems. You can look at all the websites and quote all the numbers you want. I was in the Soviet Union. My mom lived in Cuba before Batista and was back on a mission two years ago. Ask her the difference in the standard of living. What hasn't changed is the people. They still smile, they still play baseball and music and dance and are happy. The Cubans are wonderful people. And they were just as wonderful in the 40s and 50s. They are just a little more beat up today than they were then.

Your assertion that the average citizen in the Soviet Union was as well off as the average citizen in the West is utterly unsupportable. By all accounts?? I am here to tell you I was there and by MY account, that is pure bunk. I met with and spent time with Soviet citizens in 5 different cities as part of my mission. I spent days with them each. Again, if efficiency is your measure of value, we should be discussing monarchy vs dictatorship. If human welfare is the measure, there just isn't any comparison.