While I believe in theory socialism is really great, I have to side with capitalism. Capitalist societies seem to have very powerful economies. The U.S. has only been a country for 232 years, and has become a superpower. One huge reason is because of the great freedom, but capitalism has definitely helped. The GDP of the U.S. far exceeds that of any other individual country.

People like to say that capitalism doesn't work well because of greed. I'll agree that is one of the negative points of capitalism, but it's also one of the positive ones as well. In capitalistic societies, companies compete in a free market. They are of course greedy, but because of greed they fight to gain more customers. Competition almost always benefits the consumer because they are reaping the benefits of having amazing products or services.

I prefer Capitalism for two reasons.

1. Don't like the idea of a government controlling what's supposed to be private.

2. Competition and greed produce better products than government work. Look at government workers... they don't give a shit about making shit better for you, but private corporations will work as hard as they can to keep you as their customer.

but we enjoy it... is it really wasting our lives when we use something we enjoy so much?

I play the PS3, and i definetely know that it was not a waste of time or money to buy.

Ive been to socialist countries and I prefer capitalism.

Though I agree that capitalism is not without its disadvantages, (what is?) I am all for it! A note to all…these disadvantages could be turned into advantages…it all depends on who’s looking at it.

In my mind the advantages far outweigh the so-called disadvantages. Human beings are born with the knowledge that in order to survive one must work right? Only those born with the proverbial silver spoon are able to make it to the top easily and in a short time.

People need incentives at home, work, wherever…people need to believe in something better in order to be a part of something. Capitalism is outwardly consistent as survival requires originality and elasticity to stay abreast with the dynamic changes in supply and demand. (My Economics teacher should be proud…)

Capitalism also encourages large populations which determine a certain degree of diversity…being multi-racial I know!!

you're claiming that they're wasting their lives... that's actually worse.

they don't believe they are, and they enjoy it. just cause YOU think THEY are wasting their lives, doesn't mean THEY think THEY are.

but that's all a matter of personal opinion. achievement is what people in a capitalist world want. they want to work for their goals so they can get that sense of achievement. same reason why volunteering makes some of us feel good because it's something we do on free will.

if they're happy, how are they "wasting" their lives.

To say that the health of europeans is due to a socialist society is pure fallacy.

The health of that nation is directly correlated to the foods they eat and the way their countries infrastructure is structured. In the states, people generally walk less and eat food of poorer qualiy. that's because alot of people live out in the burbs.

Also to say a capitalist society would put poison to preserve milk is silly. Maybe they'd do that at first. But once the population starts dying they'd realize that it may not become profitable to be known as the milk producer who poisons their milk.

I get what you're saying. Pure capitalists will sometimes cut corners to lower costs. But this is something you see more in a communist society like China, rather than anywere in the US. And if anything,the chinese society models socialism more so than capitalism.

Oh - and Cuba having a standard of living 'close' to ours? What's your definition of 'close' a million miles away? Up until recently they weren't allowed to have cell phones or internet. They also aren't allowed to show any type of dissent without being tured in. Doesn't sound close to us at all.

As far as Europe is concerned, I have no argument. I agree that Europe did alot of good things to help their citizens over the years. But now that entitlement spending is ballooning and their society is aging, you'll see changes to the way they are structured.

While i don't agree with unrestricted capitalism, I do feel capitalism - such as the type we have here in the states - is a MUCH better way to spread out a limited number of goods and resources over an entire society.

I don't have time to respond to your whole argument which I think is a crock of shit, but please please stop calling Cuba socialist. Like all other 'socialist states' of the 20th Century were State-Capitalist.

Ha, and you call yourself a commie. Please.

You really need to be more specific when you talk about the "German/Dutch left-Communists". Non-Communists have no idea who you would be referring to; I don't even know who you are referring to.

I can, of course, introduce you to Karl Marx; who was explicit in his expectation that the state would play a role in Socialism; then disband at the onset of Communism:

"Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionizing the mode of production.

These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.

Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.

When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organize itself as a class; if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.

In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all."

That sounds like a pretty heavy involvement of the state during the revolution and transition.

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.

Socialism has been branded as a "moral" system, but only in advertisement. Indeed, there have been attempts to brand capitalism with some ethical foundation (I think it is the fairer and more democratic for example) but with less success. Ultimately though, it is fallacy to judge them based on how they've been branded because the systems themselves are detached from subjective meaning. Socialism is about centralization and the public sector (state owned), and capitalism is about decentralization and the private sector (people owned). The reason it should be looked at objectively is because anyone can do what you did and get different results. EX. Collectivism < Individualism = Capitalism, or Coercion < Self Determination = Capitalism etc.

Socialism is truly a road paved with good intentions. It is a system based on ethical assumptions instead of empirical data, which is why Bono and his UN economist friend Jeffery Sachs (who is no right-winger) and along with all the most community, advocate liberalization to eliminate poverty like it has in India, China, Bolivia, and Poland. Sachs also advised reforms in Russia, for example, but they failed because of a corrupt reluctance to decentralize government, further illustrating the failings of socialist and protectionist economies which have historically always failed.

So, myself - I support capitalism because I feel it is not only the more philosophically just economy, but also because the productivity it unleashes is the only known way to raise the tide and the living standards of the population. I think its rather niave and superficial (and romantic) to reject capitalism, particularly when its raised so many people out of poverty when implemented correctly, provided radically new innovations that continue to benefited us, and has generally made places with capitalism freer, more democratic, and wealthier. Ironically, mostly wealthy western democrats and dictators are socialists anymore.

I don't think that its the capitalist system that has made the life of the average american a little harder. I believe its the way our government has created policies and also the types of policies they have decided to create (afghanistan, iraq, oil subsidies, etc...).

You see, capitalism, when effectively integrated into a society, is far better at allocating scarce resources then would socialism. Ask any economist and they will completely agree. It's the reason why Europe is moving towards a more capitalist economy.

In my opinion, the role of the government is to offer some protections to its citizens in the form of proper regulation. I don't believe the government should tax its citizens upwards of 50% just because its innefficient at spending its money.

You see, i have no problems with socialism or socialist ideals. It's just that government can never do something as cheaply or efficiently as a private business. That doesn't mean that private business should just be left alone. It's obvious that people need protection and that's where the government steps in.

The problem in the U.S. is that the government is behind the curve in protecting the individual simply because of how our political system is set up (on lobbyists). So for the U.S., the problem isnt the fact that it's capitalist, the problem is the government itself.

You reform the way our government works and the people will have more prosperous lives. One thing is for sure, giving our corrupt, idiotic government more powers (by means of a socialist mandate) is a recipe for disaster.

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.

all i have to say is screw crime rates obiesity ect. Do you really want the government to tell you what to work, how long you can work, how much money you make and tax you till you're broke? In china it used to be a law that you couldn't have more than one child, and you couldn't take you possesions out of the contry. Honestly, china wouldn't let you leave.

p.s. the u.s. is totally obiese because we have the CHOICE to eat the crappy food from McDonalds, not because we have a capitalist government.

It is true enough that some of what a Soviet lacked in real wages was ballanced by universal coverage of certain things. One cannot argue, however, that the quality of those services was at all good; mortality rates due to Scarlet Fever, Diphtheria, Dysentery~, Typhoid Fever~, Typhus~, Relapsing Fever, and Malaria were astronomically higher than those in England and Wales indicitive of quality and cleanliness too, with ~ marking those deseases which were agritvated in the USSR by the lack of communal hygene. As staggering as the stats are (2,993,072 Soviet malaria deaths vs 0 for England and Wales) the study is careful to point out that deaths in the USSR were likely under reported. "The figures for England and Wales are approximately complete; it is likely that those for Russia are not equally so."

( http://www.marxists.org/archive/newsholme/1933/red-medicine/ch16.htm Infectious death stats from 1929 )

What ever you think of socialized medicine, even those countries with it (like my country, Canada) are behind America when it comes to existant resources and equipment, the US having more MIRs per person, for example, than any other industrial nation ( http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9272 ). This does not mean that the US system is perfect. It just illustrates that even health services which aren't to the socialized magnitude the USSRs was (France, Britian, Italy, Canada, and the rest all have many market-oriented features in their health care) still lack in resources, making the Soviet system the more dismal as it epitomized all the sour features the socialist systems had to offer: "For ideological reasons ... important components of national income – such as services and interest on capital – were excluded from the national accounts of the Soviet Union."

The first paper you post (and presumably didn't read close enough) concurs with this analysis. The paper found that the standard of living rose using health status as markers, not that it was exceptionally good. It is very clear that the standards were not close to parity with the United States, which was your main ignorance. From the paper, "These data paint a picture of a society far behind other developed countries in the health status of its population in the prewar period. For example, even in Moscow and St. Petersburg children reached no more than the 20 percentile of U.S. childthgrowth prior to World War II, suggesting widespread stunting of children during that period. But substantial and rapid improvements in child height and birth weight were recorded in subsequent years; as a result by the late 1960s children in some regions reached the 50 percentile of U.S.the child growth. A period of stagnation followed, marked by a large and growing infant and adult mortality gap with western countries and by stable or declining birth weights and child heights. Nevertheless the physical growth record of the Soviet population of the twentieth century remains an impressive one, especially in light of the evidence that some countries experienced declining adult stature during some phases of industrialization."

The peak of child growth for the soviets only reached the US's 50 percentile before falling with the economy. The paper is right in calling this impressive, none-the-less. For while it is a lie that they were anything like in parity with the US and Britain, they did improve dramatically, in large part, as the paper says, from post-war improved hygene conditions. As impressive as it was, it would be more shocking if they didn't improve in a post-famined, post-war Soviet Union.

The paper goes on to reitterate some of my points about economic growth in a communist system not indicating the standards of living, which is why it concentrates heavily on manifest changes in health and consumption. One striking finding is that consumption in the USSR at one point surpassed US consumption growth, growth being the key word, for their actual consumption was not in parity with the US's by any means: "While the consumption growth record seems clear, it should be kept in mind that this growth took place in the context of a relatively low initial level of consumption, particularly incomparison with the U.S. and the OECD. As a result, even with rapid growth the absolute level of household consumption remained well below that of the United States throughout the postwar period. Estimates vary widely, but per capita consumption in the USSR likely reached no more than one-third that of the United States in the mid-1970s, and probably declined in subsequent years." I don't know what your strategy is, but providing links that demostrate conclusively your ignorance over the "parity" lie does not help your case. The same paper that you posted continues, "Schroeder and Edwards (1981) estimate Soviet consumption per capita at 34.4 percentthat of the United States in 1979." That 33 percent, before it "fell it 22 - 26 percent by 1980. "Mostinvestigators made herculean efforts to correct Soviet consumption measures for the important sources of bias – the persistent shortages of consumer goods, the cost of time spent in search, the poor quality of goods, and the lower level of retail services – but it remains likely that the actual level of consumption was even lower than the estimates given here, and the figures remain controversial."

Once again, the empirical method reveals the truth of the matter. Soviet health, consumption, quality of goods, level of retail services, and quanity of goods were all considerably lower than its liberal rivals. The poor conditions were only to be asailed recently, the good sense and market reforms taking over the communist nonsense and market dogmas. Now poverty has falling abruptly, real wages are up at a rate unprecendented in Russian history, and all those areas of life the study touched on have improved.

As far as the Khrushchev Thaw is concerned, it is a liberalization in the real sense ("Liberal" reforms aren't just about markets. It's also about de-regulation, de-centralization, and increased civil liberties) . All I meant by it was the even if health and fitness were up in a Stalin world, a true discussion of "Standards of Living" is not possible until the Thaw, because assuming they were healthy and fit and wealthy under Stalin (they weren't as we have seen), they were not free. The Thaw provided more freedom for the Soviet people to express themselves, explore, learn, and integrate. Being healthy and in a ideological prison is not a good standard of living. I would be reluctant to call it living at all.

Moreover, as your paper show, and as I already said, all was not merry under Khrushchev Thaw. The data provided reveal "that male life expectancy had begun to decline in 1965 and that infant mortality rates started to rise in 1971, both nearly unprecedented developments in industrialized countries and both signals that, despite the apparent continuous improvements in economic growth and consumption in the USSR in the postwar period, a significant deterioration in the health of some groups in the population was underway."

Your second source doesn't contradict this. In fact, it suplements it. It says consumption grew but absolute consumption was still well below the US and England, primarily because of how growth was allotted: "Achieving rising living standards while investment is rising is the challenge of economic development. On the other hand, only a minority of the population shared in this advance. The peasants realized no advance, and the convicts certainly lost. While the administrative elite and the industrial workforce probably did well, 'trickle down' did not spread much further." The paper concludes thus: "This optimistic conclusion is subject to three qualifications. First, the rise in consumption required an increase intotal hours worked, and no discount has been made for that factor. Second, forced collectivization and political terror may have lowered the quality of life more than enough to offset the rise in material consumption. Third, the gains were confined to only a fraction of the population."

How desperate must you be in your quest of revisionist history to pronounce these two reports as being in your favour? The first paper found your parity claim absurdist, the second showed USSR growth in the shadow of the US, with a qualification that it may have been offset by "forced collectivism". Hardly sympathetic to communism, and your conceit makes it pathetic only the more.

Even if the comparisons, as your correctly point out, are not analogous between say, England and Russia, or America and Russia, or what have you, the issue originally being addressed was your egregious claim that the communist bloc lived "in parity" with the west in terms of living standards. I showed conclusively that you were mistaking growth for living standards, and that in every respect they were worse off than the west (whether you blame it on collectivism, totalitarianism, war, or all of the above). This is the only claim I addressed and it's one that remains unsubstantiated.

Furthermore, much of the health problems in Russia today are due to alcoholism and other bad health habits that arose out of a cultural heritage and the Soviets collapse. It's pretty clear that if Vodka didn't exist, Russians might be living a lot longer. You also failed to address the undeniable empirical evidence of Russia economic and domestic successes in the last decade as they begin to crawl out of the communist abyss. Instead you chose to use rhetoric, and a surprisingly amount of it too.

Finally, I believe that America's health is actually very high with the exception of things like obesity which bare more on the culture than its amount of health services. The same paper I posted earlier from my "propaganda outlet" runs through many of the criteria WHO and other organizations use to assess nations health status, and also scrutinizes some of the figures commonly parroted by pessimists. This, as you said, should be taken elsewhere if we want to debate it.

Following the collapse and transition recession Russians suffered dramatically. They are only beginning to come out of it (see the earlier post). It isn't just the wealthy and the banks either. It's the average citizen whose income has increased 50% and it the poor when it says "millions have been lifted out of poverty".

All additional information you can find in previous posts.

"They were behind the United States and many other western nations..."

This is all I wanted to hear.

I'll respond using only quotes from prior posts. Your quotes are in bold, mine in italics.

Why is it this new economy hasn't managed to do the same in the same time period?

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.

Again, they were behind by a very small amount

From the paper, "These data paint a picture of a society far behind other developed countries in the health status of its population in the prewar period. For example, even in Moscow and St. Petersburg children reached no more than the 20 percentile of U.S. childthgrowth prior to World War II, suggesting widespread stunting of children during that period. But substantial and rapid improvements in child height and birth weight were recorded in subsequent years; as a result by the late 1960s children in some regions reached the 50 percentile of U.S.the child growth."

The peak of child growth for the soviets only reached the US's 50 percentile.

"[the] USSR at one point surpassed US consumption growth, growth being the key word, for their actual consumption was not in parity with the US's by any means: "While the consumption growth record seems clear, it should be kept in mind that this growth took place in the context of a relatively low initial level of consumption, particularly incomparison with the U.S. and the OECD. As a result, even with rapid growth the absolute level of household consumption remained well below that of the United States throughout the postwar period."

But, again, declare your hallow victory; I wouldn't want you to feel insecure...None of what you have stated has been born out by the facts, none, yet you have decided you've won.

Instead you chose to use rhetoric, and a surprisingly amount of it too.

That is not in context, it does not compare with what the poverty rates were prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

You're moving the goal post. You were asking why they hadn't had a productivity boom since the reforms, when they have. This trend is stable and will continue and will eventually surpass whatever it was before.

The entire study is linked below.

From the other paper:

""Schroeder and Edwards (1981) estimate Soviet consumption per capita at 34.4 percent that of the United States in 1979." That 33 percent, before it "fell it 22 - 26 percent by 1980." Their consumption barely passed 1/3 of the States at its peak. This is not parity. As for the median child growth, the 50 percentile is its peak before it fell rapidly, and this was only in "some regions." It's pretty sad when a Soviet success is getting a few kids to grow fully.

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.

I am as patriotic as the next guy. However, I am going to set aside all the "Huzzah America".

Fact of the matter is, socialism sounds better. It sounds fair and it sound utopian.

However, it does not work.

Human nature is not perfect or utopian.

Socialism does not factor in the dark side of human nature, such as greed. Capitilism does.

In a Capatilist society, the citizens can be lead by their own wordly desires and pursue their wants.

In a Socialist society, the normal citizens can not. However, the country's leaders; the Mao Zedongs, the Stalins and the Castros can.

Capitilist country's leaders do the same. They follow the dollar to whatever destination it may lead them. However, they are bound by democratic and capitilist restraints.

Socialist society enable the people by promoting corruption.

If a socialist society could be run devinely, then perhaps it could work. But it won't...after all we are all human.

I disagree.

The leaders of those countries, how do they live?

Not nearly as meager as you describe.

Hence, if the leaders are living better than the common man?

How is everything equal?

I agree with you, and the general attraction to the freedom in USA was based on our democracy..the chance for a better future. The Democrat party leans toward socialism, and in theory, the Republicans toward capitalism.

It amazes me though to see the wealthy leaning toward socialism and more and more of it filtering into our country..Social Security, Medicare, and maybe Universal Health care in our near future. The problem is with our middle (and upper middle) class who work 46 weeks/yr (avg), 30-50 years until retirement and are taxed hardest to "share".

although that is possible, it is all done freely. anyone has the ability to do so (if they strive for it). I know about people like George Soros, but here's the thing, people like George Soros are people expressing their right to free speech and freedom of property. it's either this or we give the government control over everything (which is a one party problem too). at least through capitalism we have both sides doing this kind of thing, still evening it out.

although, i can tell already you're for a one party system.

wait, i just thought you were bitching about campaign contributions, but you actually think the corporations run this country?

i think this country would be way more libertarian if they did (which actually isn't so bad).

1. drugs, prostitution and gambling are big money makers and the pharmaceutical companies can make a shit load off of legalizing drugs. but... if they run things... how come they're not legal? how come everytime a politician accepts money or gifts from corporations they get in trouble or even arrested... it seems we're already socialist and living your dream... no free exchange of money cause there just has to be a reason for it. definitely not what this country was built on. it was created to make sure that no matter how insane something might seem, it should still be legal cause it involves what we do with our own property. but i keep forgetting... i'm talking to a commie, you're not a fan of our American values. this basically goes nowhere, but here comes the other points anyways.

2. you complain about where a stop sign goes. really? i mean, if that's how much power they have, that they're worrying about where a stop sign goes... you really shouldn't worry. stop sign locations tend to be Universal.

3. not freely elected if the citizens are limited on campaign contributions, and government shouldn't censor the media. we have two major parties for this reason, because they are their own watch dogs. sites like the Daily Kos and Media Matters constantly attack any right wing statement, and shows like the O'reilly Factor constantly attack Far left media for inaccuracies.

4. it kind of actually sucks that corporations don't have more power. i'm really waiting for flat tax and drugs to be legal.

i'm really not angry at anything. it's more funny on how you actually believe the crap you put forward.

1. you've gone from them having power to just being influential. and? how exactly do we prevent that? who will control the media? the government (you said no, so it has to be the people then), and i do know that poor people have media sources too, but guess what, it's the rich who just happen to get it out there better (on tv that is). so really, the only other option is for the government to take over the media... i know you don't want that, so you're just dancing in circles.

2. it seems you're more on insulting me than actually explaining thing, and that's very sad.

3. drugs, prostitution and gambling are examples of freedom. land of the free... right?

4. it's free when the government doesn't get involved. if you level the playing field (supposed equality) that's not equal treatment. hence, us losing our freedoms.

5. democracy is the people voting in every idea put fourth... we're a republic, where we vote in represenatives (democratic republic since we vote in ammendments too). so far, i still see the people voting in who they want to become elected officials. if the rich are rigging elections, that's a different story that involves breaking the law.

you still like those personal attacks... o well, i still say i do respect your beliefs, cause you do bring up good and interesting points.

can you limit power from the rich without having the government get involved at all? the business men are just going to let everyone run things? they're not gonna work hard to make more money? what's stopping them? if you say the people have a say in what gets aired, they'll need a way to enforce that. that's creating a government who will enforce this control. hence, creating governmental power over the media.

you bring up an interesting point on democracy. Democracy in a way does limit the people's freedom. put it this way, the people have the ability to vote out the first amendment in a full on democracy. i don't believe the government should hold power over the people, but i also believe that NO ONE should tell others what to do with their private lives. with a full on democracy, the people have the ability to vote in commie laws that hurt our freedoms. i think certain ways should be permanently set, so that no matter what the majority thinks, we will always have our freedom to do w/e we want with our own lives. i believe the government's role is purely to protect us from physical wrong doing and "lying". and, of course, the ability to set contracts. i also believe some other shit, but i am careful to make sure that government does not run our lives nor allow our lives to be ran. the country already isn't a full on democracy cause they see that idea is failed, you can't just have democracy. the problem is that we decided to become more authoritarian on that point instead of libertarian.

now, we do differ in opinion (obviously), but maybe you just don't see what i'm trying to say. it's very obvious that you're more authoritarian, and i can see why, because you wish to level the playing field. you believe the government's responsibility is to make everyone equal to eachother. i believe the government's role is to make sure that we don't kill eachother or cheat our way through. i do understand why you want but you want, but i hold a principle that no one (no matter how many) has the right to control my life or tell me what to do. it may seem unfair to just allow these rich guys to build their businesses and control the market with their vices and temptations, but is it worth allowing the government to ban vices and redistribute wealth? it may seem that way, but i don't think millions of people who just want more freedom and less government are retarded. maybe they just don't want to be bothered anymore.

the true question is, which is do you find more unfair? Authoritarian power or Corporate growth?

nope, i believe no one should have authority over our private lives... don't get how that's authoritarian somehow... seems more libertarian.

if you give "people" the ability to vote in commie laws like "no drugs, no gambling, no swearing on tv, no fast cars, no violent video games" how do you call that freedom? true democracy is simply the slower way to lead to facism. the other way is through dictatorship. why? because people in general panic when something hurts someone and quickly rally round to make it illegal.

thus causing them to create laws that limit our individual rights. yes yes, say i act like a juvenile because of my libertarian beliefs, but believing that government should restrict certain individuals in order to make other individuals happier (such as redistribute wealth or censorship) is also a belief we hold as children. ever maybe think... we just think of a lot of shit as kids? i understand that you feel Libertarians (i wouldn't exactly say i am one, but hold many of their beliefs in this area) are really just thinking "god, stay out of my life", but who are we really to decide what's good for an individual?

i don't want power to go to the rich (i was joking a few posts back), i was purely saying that if corporates did control the country, we'd be a lot more libertarian (in a semi-satirical way).

i don't have a problem with the government enforcing basic laws, it's more of a problem with just more laws. yeah, rape and murder is wrong cause it's physical force against someone... but nothing wrong with a large corporation creating shit that i like. doesn't matter if the employees get payed a dollar an hour, they have their choice.

as for media, the people do run it. the rich are just more heard because they created the tvs, and they created the news organizations. sounds bad if all of a sudden the government starts telling them how to run their corporation (News Corp is a corporation).

it really just comes to which you rather have. I understand and respect your view, it's one that i held for quite awhile. but i truly believe that a libertarian government is more free. the only thing i could say that really is authoritarian about it (beyond the scale i mean) is that it makes the laws of individual freedoms permanent. although i've been changed after reading a lot on political philosophy, we're all just different. i don't expect you to change from what i write, which is why i decided to stop making sarcastic remarks, i just want you to understand the views that libertarians (and those with libertarian beliefs) hold.

i'm not for a purely libertarian system, but at a point of common sense.

as for when a government reaches the inevitable point or overpower, we simply violently revolt against a wealthy individual who exerts an unreasonable amount of power (if he can actually reach that amount of land control).

remember permanent laws? how bout make it that streets, town squares, forests, shit like that are owned by no one (except for the street lights and stop signs shit). listen, i'm talking about common sense here. not about either government (people) rule it or the wealthy own it. i'm saying no one runs it. yes, there can be land patches available for buying, but in order to protect our individual rights, we will need to set permanent laws stating that no one controls this country in general.

as for the argument thing, that's when i realized that a heated debate leads nowhere, so i decided to stop getting sarcastic (psychology thing). i've been saying the same thing, just been more rude about it.

the thing about communism though is that the government decides what is done with these patches of land. they tell the people what to do. i'm referring to make it that no one is told what to do.

a violent revolution can also be considered anarchist, since, that is what results from a violent revolution usually. actually, under communist rule, that is the perfect time to violently revolt.

communism has the government run things, set laws that they feel is for the better good, libertarianism states that no one runs things (when it comes to individual freedoms and the market). since land is a thing that is just there and belongs to the earth, no one can actually own it. now, it's not bad for rich people to own land, but what i'm against is anarcho-capitalism (where they can own everything). it's not that i'm for communism (which means they can't run shit). there are just certain pieces of land that the government keeps (like we have now). highways and streets. but strips and property is still around, nothing against that.

i see that you have a point on the wealthy have the most say (in a warped, but true way), because they create things that the people use. tv for instance. but the thing is, they created it, and the people have decided to use the media as their reference. i just don't believe that restrictions should be made on the market like that.

but it once again ends in you wanting everyone to be set into equal roles where no one has a disadvantage, and i want people to have different things to work for and look forward to. this, of course, leading to some who become wealthy and others who become homeless.

1. i think it's more about choice. and yes, i am a "tough shit" type of guy. i don't see why we should be deciding who deserves more than the other. why not let the market decide (which is us technically). people who become mega rich have chosen that path. they've chosen the path of business, no friends, constant paranoia, and excruciating stress. an old saying "Anyone can make money if that's all they want", and it's very true. most of us don't go for that though, why? cause that life sucks for most of us. yes, you have all the money in the world, but that's it. no life, no friends, just work and constant thoughts of suicide.

2. when a person rules everyone and they can't be free within that country because of this individual, it's not just because they're rich and powerful, it's because they're a dictator. violent revolution against a dictator isn't left or right, it's just people saying "we're not gonna take it".

3. i'm not gonna kill you if you become mayor, but if you decide to...

take away guns

ban cigs, drugs, alcohol, porn, etc.

restrict the market and redistribute wealth

...I may actually consider it.

1. if one man rules all and tells everyone what to do, it doesn't matter how he got the power, it matters what he's doing now. we're restricted from any freedom, and it's more natural to revolt. you have to stop seeing things as black and white.

2. it's not just ban drugs, it's all of those things. it's complete control over the lives of individuals. really, the turning point would have to be the banning of guns (as the NRA believes) because that is really our only chance of revolting. the people ban things and then unban them left and right, but that doesn't make it right for them to do so. but that is why wars are fought, for conflicting ideals (revolutionary war would be best example). lets say all of the people decided to ban the right to vote, decided to ban the right to free speech, do you still think it's okay because the majority of people decided it is? do you just live with it?

maybe it's just because "freedom" itself means more to me than it does to others.

it doesn't have to be everyone agreeing to vote against democracy, it only needs the majority. and are you saying you'd just let it happen?

and i chose to walk into wal-mart... wal-mart didn't force me to do shit.

i don't mind the current policies, but the thing is, i never walked into this country... i was born here. wal-mart is something you can simply just walk into. there's no having to go into wal-mart at all, and as far as i know, no one was ever born inside a wal-mart.

yes, this country can be better (could be less laws for me, or more equal for you), and i believe in fixing it. but that's because a government is something we have to live with. there are plenty of businesses within walking or even driving distance, so if one business isn't doing well, i can go to the other. as they lose money, they work to try and win me back. a country is a little different, we fight for what we believe in (mainly because it's a lot harder to just move from country to country).

by what you said, you sound a lot like those extreme right "love it or leave it" type guys. funny, i always thought you were on the other side of the scale.

Capitalism. Socialism is an invention of the devil to enslave men.

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

wow! where to start?

Capitalism may operate schizophrenically where it comes to human welfare but it is anything but irrational or indifferent. Socialism seemingly is always accompanied by a draconian form of totalitarian dictatorship. Every capitalist society I can think of puts limits on the Capitalist. While it took time, the US now has child labor laws, minimum wages, OSHA, and a whole hierarchy of limitations on pure capitalist free market industrial hell. Art, freedom, the family, religion, all thrive in a capitalist environment and wither in a pure socialist environment. Tired of the US as the example? Compare Sparta and Athens. Everything credited to the Greeks and the Hellenistic era is 100% Athens and 0% Sparta. Sparta took kids from their family to train as soldiers. Weak ones were abandoned in the wilderness. Their idea of art was a bronze spearhead. And many consider this the most pure example of true socialism on a large scale.

Your paragraph that begins "without regulation" is a screaming outrage. Capitalism to date has always evolved to more regulations and less free market extreme. Because it is NOT prone to totalitarianism and dictatorships, it has a chance to evolve. Dictators rarely let their subjects evolve towards more freedom and their nation towards a more free market.

Capitalism is forced by the market to consider non quantitative elements that affect profitability. Your examples are ludicrous. If a dairy farmer used poison in his milk, he would exterminate his market. How is that profitable? The free market takes into account human nature and some philosophical impact on profitability. Whether you lean towards Bentham's pain/pleasure propinquity or Buber's personalism, there are aspects of the equation to maximizing profit that are not obviously reflected in numbers on an income and expense sheet; If there weren't, why would accountants have a category such as good will?

The efficiencies of the soviet union lied more in the totalitarian government than in socialism. Stalin abused the people you say socialism protects in order to industrialize. How many tens of millions of citizens died in order to advance the good of the people? DO you REALLY want to compare that with the abuses which occurred here as the US industrialized? The excesses of the Robber Barons led to reform. Did Stalin's excesses lead to reforms to protect the worker? Hell no! The Pyramids were built by slaves. VERY efficient. Is that efficiency enough of an argument to return to slavery?

I was in the Soviet Union in the decade before the wall came down. The trains were amazingly prompt. You think that is efficient? So efficient that stores had shelves over 50% empty. Classless society? I stayed an a magnificent hotel which normal Soviet citizens were not allowed in. Freedom? The "key lady" on my floor asked me the first time I returned to my room how much it would take to buy my blue jeans, the ones on the bottom of my zipped up suitcase. Human Welfare? No one on bus or train would look up from the floor and certainly not meet my eye. Unless you were there, please don't insult millions and millions of Soviet citizens by saying they were relatively well off as you do in your summation.

As for Europe, on the whole they are no more or less socialist than the US is. All the Western democracies have aspects of socialism and capitalism co-existing.

Cuba? Why have so many Cubans risked life and limb to come to America and so few, if any Americans are fighting to move to Cuba?

in short if you want to discuss theoretical capitalism and theoretical socialism, have fun. But in the real world, the examples are clear, capitalism leads to a better state of affairs for the most people. Let Bentham work out the equation for you.

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.

Capitalism by far is better. I have been reading other arguments and I agree that Socialism sounds great and looks good on paper but it is unrealistic. Karl Marx said that Socialism is the transition to Communism. We all know how that story ends.

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.

History has shone that every government that has attempted using Socialism has FAILED. Share the wealth is a load of crap. Why should I give the money that I work hard to earn to a bum with 12 kids that is living completely on wellfare that has never worked a day in his life. Mr.Obama, tell what is fair in that.

-Conserned Conservative

Capitalist societies produce a concentration of wealth that proves detrimental to the general population, the economy as a whole, and even the capitalists, the businessmen themselves.

Lassaize-faire Capitalism allows a small number of individuals and businesses to posess, to horde, a large proportion of the wealth and land in a nation; depriving the majority of control over their labor, their lives, and essentially leaving them under the direct control of their employers.

Capitalism, as well, tends to operate irrationally when it comes to human welfare. Happiness, health, art, education, knowledge, science, freedom, family, the environment, religion; these are unquantifiable, non-monetary benefits that tend to be thrown out of the equation due to the difficulty in extracting financial gain out of them. You can, of course, exploit all of these needs; it is extremely unlikely that the system would try to fulfill them.

Basically, the world around us would be shaped only by what is most profitable, or what a small group of people with economic power want.

If it is profitable for an industry to work its people 16 hours a day or more, as well as their children, for enough money to pay for one meal a day then so be it, that is what will happen. If it is more profitable to use a poisonous substance to preserve milk, that is what would be used.

Without regulation, without direction, and without an overriding value that places human needs and human happiness above profit and business we would see a complete deterioration of our people and our society while at the same time a wonderfully prosperous economy. Well, that is, until an economic depression occurs.

Socialist economies of the past, even the worst ones, and socialist economies currently have shown remarkable feats. In the Soviet Union we saw an agrarian kingdom turn into an industrial superpower in decades (in the west it took hundreds of years). Even though the Soviet Union wasn't as productive as the United States its people held a standard of living close to it.

In Cuba, while its Capitalist neighbors suffer through civil wars, famines, crime, corruption, poverty; the red island's standard of living is rather close the United States; the health of its people is actually higher and its literacy rate is enviable.

Europe, while slightly less productive than the United States, maintains the highest standard of living in the world. Its people are healthier, smarter, freer, enjoy paid vacations, benefits; they simply, on average, have it better than the average American.

The trade-off is clear; do you want an extremely productive society with a handful of extremely wealthy people while everyone else remains uncared for or a productive society of a more equal distribution of wealth where the average person enjoys an extremely high standard of living?

It's the difference between a society where a man could, possibly, maybe, become rich but will most likely be relatively poor. Or a society where noone can become rich but everyone is well-off.

Yes, America is prosperous. But surveys say we have fewer friends than ever, and that financial prosperity does not make one more satisfied with life. And yes, we benefit from better products and services, but the capitalist mutant advertisement has become has convinced people to keep wasting their lives saving for the next piece of shit they absolutely don't need.

"Basically, the world around us would be shaped only by what is most profitable, or what a small group of people with economic power want...

"Without regulation, without direction, and without an overriding value that places human needs and human happiness above profit and business we would see a complete deterioration of our people and our society while at the same time a wonderfully prosperous economy."

What's this "Would" business? You're demonstrably right; This perfectly describes what's going on in the US right now. Though you very well might have meant that... Just thought I'd say it outright in my usual heavy-handed style :-P

But yes, I agree with you on 100% of your argument.

Well, I should clarify by saying that the United States isn't Capitalist anymore, it is a Mixed-Market economy. So while we still have a huge amount of political influence and control going to economic interests (businessmen and businesses) there are protections and buffers against that power. We the people can still vote, still have a say in the way our country is governed; we still have common Democratic power to shape our nation and its policies. We can, through the vote, force companies to do something or not do something, we can take money away from businesses and put them into social projects. In a purely Capitalist society this would not be able to occur.

In a pure Capitalist society; there wouldn't be any vote-buying, any lobbying, any corruption. The government would be under direct control of, or have little to no power over the business world. Meaning, we would literally have a government (or society governed by) Mcdonalds, IBM, and Wal-Mart.

I'm not as well versed in the ideas of capitalism as i would like but capitalism seems to be just about profit and thus is run mainly on greed. In a real capitalist society there wouldn't be any regulations on businesses so some important factors such as using clean technology might never be utilized since at first it is expensive, and innovation is usually driven by profit not the good it will do to society. The consumer wins when there are multiple companies producing the same or similar services and products, but in a true capitalist nation there would be no laws against monopolies. Once a monopoly is reached the consumer loses. I agree that capitalism or at least the semi-capitalism the United states practices is very good at making money, but at what cost?

A socialist nation may not make as much money as a capitalist nation but most of the people in it will live better lives. Once you reach a certain wealth threshold additional wealth means little, unless you feel you must show off you wealth and well...

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

"People need incentives at home, work, wherever…people need to believe in something better in order to be a part of something."

Socialism promises mutual prosperity and equality; that seems to be a more popular thing to work for than the unlikely chance of becoming individually rich.

There's also a facet of humanity which capitalists tend to ignore, instead of being selfish and greedy most human beings lean towards cooperation and altruism. Every single day we cooperate with those around us without any sort of money or goods exchange. Parents care for their children without the children paying the parents, friends give to friends, people fight and die for their countrymen, their families, and their beliefs.

Religion, also, has been a prime motivator in human history. Way before Capitalism's system of rewards and punishments people acted according to their religious convictions or their tribal affiliations.

Cooperation is why we aren't just killing our neighbors to take their money and goods for ourselves (especially when we have the power to do so), cooperation is why families stick together and aid one another, cooperation is why we have a military that protects us with their lives, cooperation is why businesses work, actually. Ask anyone working for any company what is most important in getting the job done and they'll tell you "cooperation, team-work".

Our scientific discoveries are more and more a collaboration of scientists and researchers from around the world. They work together, share information, share resources, they go to the far reaches of the globe, dangerous areas, and for what? Crappy pay? A few bucks? No, they do it because of their inherent, biological altruism, their beliefs, their understanding that what they are doing benefits them and those around them.

Something should be said for selfishness, that is certainly a motivator; but more often than not what motivates people (especially in a civilized society) is a cooperative ethic.

And just because they don't think they are, that doesn't mean they aren't. Yes, there are people who will be perfectly happy and psychologically healthy leading money-driven lives. But living in America, where capitalism reigns, can convince pretty much anyone that that is all there is to life, that money and possessions equal success and contentment. So nearly everyone in America dedicates his life to his career, and to "moving up the ladder," confident that this will mean a happier life. But above the level of poverty, money does little to make people any happier.

It's not personal opinion. These are the results of polls and surveys.

"The health of that nation is directly correlated to the foods they eat and the way their countries infrastructure is structured. In the states, people generally walk less and eat food of poorer quality. that's because alot of people live out in the burbs."

Eating habits certainly have an impact on health, but much of those eating habits are influenced by public programs on nutritional education and information through the healthcare system, the schools, and the media outlets.

Here are some interesting statistics that might gum up your point of view:

Top healthiest nations (in order, 2006)/Obesity rate rank

Hong Kong: n/a

Japan: #28

Sweden: #21

Australia: #6

Israel: n/a

Switzerland: #27

Canada: #11

Norway: #26

New Zealand: #7

Italy: #25

UAE: n/a

Austria: #24

U.K.: #3

France: #23

Cuba: n/a

Spain: #12

Costa Rica: n/a

Belgium: #19

Sources:

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-unbk0609-06.html

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_obe-health-obesity

As you can see, most of the nations in the list of the top healthiest countries in the world are also towards the top (or even in the top ten to twenty) of the world's most obese nations.

The thing that all of them have the most in common is a universal healthcare system. (Some of them go about it in different ways, such as mandating government insurance, setting prices if private hospitals are the main source of healthcare, or forcing all hospitals to be non-profit.).

'll deal with your other arguments later, but at this time I think I've shown that your belief that diet is what has made these nations the healthiest on earth is pretty much bunk.

(and, I would like to point out to you that even though the United States isn't in the top spot for healthiest nations, evil Cuba is.)

Socialist country? Would you care to enlighten me on where this place is?

Go read a book.

1. Socialism is not the government controlling 'what's supposed to be private'. This is rubbish on two counts. One it assumes "stuff that's meant to be private" and wrongly equates it with property. And two, and more importantly, socialism has nothing to do with government control. That is what we call state capitalism. If you have bothered to read anything by the German/Dutch left-communists you would know this.

2. Socialism and Capitalism aren't 'systems of governemnt' you can compare side by side and choose the better one. Socialism is the real expression of working class oppression and the historic tendency toward it's realisation. Go read a book and come back when you have half a brain.

As for Cuba:

Let's compare some facts between the United States and Cuba, shall we?

Prison rate per capita:

Cuba: 3.6 per 100,000 people

United States: 5 per 100,000

http://www.visionofhumanity.org/gpi/home.php

The U.S. government may not have a dozen "political prisoners" under lock and key, but it has tortured foreign and American prisoners:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/18/world/ middleeast/18justice.html

By the way, many of those political prisoners are paid American government agents; taking money from our government to destabilize and overthrow Cuba's government.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/mariner/20010625.html

By the way, if I was receiving money from Chinese agents, or any country for that matter, with the express purpose of undermining the U.S. government I would be in jail as well.

Secondly; I suppose they don't have cell-phones and little access to the internet (though the new, Communist leader Raul Castro is lifting those restrictions), the Cuban government hasn't killed hundreds of thousands of people overseas. A nice trade-off; I would say. Then again; it's typically American to cherish material goods over human life; your laptop is much more important than the life of an Arab or other foreigner.

Of course, dissent is also perfectly allowed in Cuba; perhaps not as voraciously as in the United States, but the idea that Cuba is a repressive, tyrannical dictatorship isn't well-founded. Here's an account from people that visited the country in the 90s (things have only improved since then):

http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/960411/lessons.shtml

I might add that cell-phone and internet access isn't widespread with many of Cuba's neighbors; a comparison with them will come later though.

Here's a few other comparisons to the United States:

Literacy rate:

United States: 99%

Cuba: 99.8%

That's right, Cuba has a slightly higher literacy rate.

Life expectancy:

United States: Male:75 Female:80.4

Cuba: Male: 76.4 Female 79.9

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-unbk0609-06.html

So, about the same. According to some statistics the United States is slightly higher (by a point and a half or so). Either way, Cuba, a third world Socialist state is comparable, if not slightly better than the richest nation on earth in terms of life expectancy.

Infant Mortality:

United States: 6.3 deaths per 1,000 live births

Cuba: 5.93 deaths per 1,000 live births

Again, a third world country beats the richest nation on earth in protection of its own babies.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/cu.html

As for their eating habits; they are eating quite well; organically even. This socialist state survived having all of its trading partners disappear; all of its oil dry up, and its food supply cut off. Could the United States see so much economic upheaval and come out ahead, the same as before? Without a global war, perhaps not.

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2005/04/0080501

In fact, Cuba is being seen as a leader and model for other nations; its success is being studied heavily.

http://www.organicconsumers.org/OFGU/cuba010405.cfm

Take a look at other figures here at MSN Encarta:

http://encarta.msn.com/fact_631504750/cuba_facts_and_figures.html

Compare Cuba with the United States and other nations. Sure; Cuba doesn't have as many televisions and internet connections as the United States; but compare Cuba with its neighbors; other third and second world countries with similar circumstances but Capitalist economies. You'll find Cuba fairs equal or better than nearly all of its neighbors in nearly even respect; it is certainly the top of the heap in terms of third world nations and it gives many first world nations a run for their money.

Again, this is coming from a Communist third world nation with minimal land, resources, friends, and military might.

Makes ya think, doesn't it?

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.

I don't really have a lot of time, I'll be quick.

IF

BUSINESS<HUMANITY

THEN

CAPITALISM<SOCIALISM

OR IF

HUMANITY<BUSINESS

THEN

SOCIALISM<CAPITALISM

I love humanity.

You might as well be saying "I am right, they should know why I am right, screw them for being stupid".

That isn't debating; back up your statements with facts, quotes, references; anything. I can't just say "American scientists say that global warming is real". Without references to what American scientists, what reports..etc...then it is likely I am making it up or misrepresenting their view.

It also isn't up to the other side to research your points for you. You can't go up to someone you are debating and tell them "I am right; there are people that say I am right, go research it if you don't believe me!". That is intellectually dishonest, lazy, and not conducive to a real debate.

You cannot indirectly quote a mass of people without anything you are referencing to. You might as well say "according to Communists Capitalism will wither away in the 21st century". Describing what nations they come from hardly helps as it is likely that there is more than one point of view.

As far as I know there is no such thing as a single Dutch or German Left-Communism that monolithically stands without needing to be referenced. Is there some sort of handbook I missed out on at the meetings? Are the German-Dutch Left-Communists the only valid Communists, why?

Who are these German/Dutch Left-Communists? What are their names? What are some of their writings that back up what you are saying? You don't think such trivial things are needed in a debate?

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

This sort of arrogance is common with my comrades; it is sad how many of you see fit to hold the mantle of Communist pope and excommunicate anyone who doesn't fit the mold you have envisioned for what we are, what we do, and who we read.

It may be that I have read the people you are referring to, but I do not understand the rather vague references you have put forth. You don't see fit to explain; of course, that would be beneath someone so expert in the realm of Communism-dom.

If you continue to "debate" in the following manner, constantly spouting off rhetoric without anything backing you up, I'll consider this the end of my debate with you. You can go on ranting and railing against this or that "idiot" who should "know better" all you want, you can leave me out of that.

"And two, and more importantly, socialism has nothing to do with government control. That is what we call state capitalism."

Karl Marx flatly states that the government will control a good number of things; bringing education, transportation, communication, and other services under its direct administration. He also says that it will confiscate the property of emigrants and rebels.

So, yes, you did indicate that Socialism has nothing to do with government control (you said that specifically); that is completely opposite of what Karl Marx says. I don't know if Karl Marx is following Dutch-German Left-Communism; perhaps he is not Communist enough for you either.

Every Socialist economy has "always failed"? According to what standards? According to what measurements? What is "failure"?

Was the Soviet Union a failure? By all accounts, even though its economy was marginally less productive than the West's, its people enjoyed a standard of living in parity with "Capitalist" west. Not only that, but the Soviet Union had an extremely late start; industrialization had taken hold in the United States and Britain hundreds of years before the peasantry in the USSR had traded their plows for wrenches.

Is Cuba a failure? Despite economic catastrophe when all of its major trading partners disappeared, almost over night; its people's standard of living are in parity with those of the United States and countries with gargantuan economic systems.

The more Socialist Euro-nations economies develop at a slightly slower rate than the United State's, but their people are healthier happier, better educated, and enjoy greater benefits than those in the United States.

The United States' economy itself has only increased in Socialization, in government control, since the 1930s, yet its economy has developed fantastically since that time and its people have become remarkably prosperous.

Lastly; if the society was a Democratic Socialist Centralized economy it would be far more "people owned" than a Capitalist economy. The whole of the population would have a say in how the economy is run, not a handful of wealthy businessmen and landlords.

Of course; that's only if you implement a society based on centralized principles instead of a decentralized cooperative economy. The USSR, Cuba, and Maoist China, among others, used only a brand of Socialism; an extremely militaristic Centralized brand. It is, of course, good for some situations but has some extreme defects.

In most cases, the failures of Socialism in the past can be laid at the feet of those nations which buck Democracy and turn to Totalitarianism. Of course, we'd have more examples of democratic Socialism had it not been for U.S. intervention in Latin America and the USSR's policy towards events like the "Prague Spring".

Hugo Chavez, though, a Democratic Socialist, has certainly improved Venezuela's situation. The Venezuelan people's standard of living has increased significantly since his presidency began and will, hopefully, continue to do so.

You're right, the U.S. isn't purely Capitalist and Europe isn't purely Socialist, I never said that.

However, the comparison is this: The U.S. is far more Capitalistic than Europe (especially in certain countries). It just so happens that the more Socialist Europeans are more prosperous than the more Capitalist Americans. This indicates that Socialism certainly has a positive affect on a society. It doesn't prove that pure Socialism is the best; but time and again, example after example, the more Socialist the country the better off the people are (if put into a proper context).

Anyways, the Chinese economy may be "flourishing" but the people of China are in a horrible condition. China is not Communist; it is somewhat Socialist. Just because a group calls themselves this or that does not make it so.

China didn't need to introduce Capitalism to increase its standard of living (neither did Russia, as the standard of living still hasn't come back up to Soviet levels). It may make more billionaires and increase tax revenues but it doesn't make the people as a whole any better off.

Industrialization didn't occur because of Capitalism; industrialization is what allowed a system like Capitalism to occur. There was industrial machinery in Feudal times; and Feudalism continued in Britain alongside industrial development. It wasn't until later that Capitalism was arrived at; that is; until Industrialization had developed into a great force.

Capitalism could be said to have helped industrialization along. No Communist; not even Karl Marx, denies that Capitalism played a great role in technological growth, some rises in the standard of living, and brilliant inventions. However, Communism/Socialism can do the exact same thing in a fairer way, faster, while enriching the majority of the population. It also provides a far more stable economy; which Capitalism has never been able to give.

Socialism is the good, IF and only IF it is properly carried out, if the people at the early stages are even the slightest bit corrupt then you can kiss it goodbye. Since a good socialism is almost completely out of the picture at this point, however, I am perfectly fine living in my capitalist society…

My favorite working model so far is the kind like they use in northern Europe, with a capitalism under-structure but many facets of life socialized, which, for the most part, is the "best of both worlds"

Your main point is inconsequential to me as I am not the person you were directly debating with. I'll let him sort out your main point if he sees fit to do so. I, however, am mostly concerned with the contentions I denounced.

Alot of the poverty malarky; the idea that the average Soviet citizen was considerably poorer than the poor of the United States; derives from one of the worst contextual misinterpretations of wages I have seen. It is common for anti-Communist theoreticians to look at wages, including real wages, and see that; for example; the

average wage in the USSR is 2.00 an hour while the average wage in the USA is 10.00 (they do the same for Cuba). This, of course, ignores all of the free goods and services provided to the general population. Given to all Soviet citizens but never included in the standard of living calculations are free health-care, free post-secondary education, free psychiatric care, among other public services.

Also, the differences between a Socialist economy and a Capitalist economy with regards to what wages actually mean is never factored in. Lately, however, we have seen a rise in a new form of standard of living calculations that considers more than wages and GDP per capita.

According to the papers I so lovingly googled for you; the standard of living in the USSR averaged rather well up to the era of Khrushchev. However, taking in only the

Stalin years we see a dramatic rise in the standard of living; this includes the continued social upheaval that marked the slow end of the civil war, the famine years, and WWII.

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:gIQj25664GoJ:www.econ.ubc.ca/dp9718.pdf+soviet+u

nion+comparison+standard+of+living&hl;=en&ct;=clnk&cd;=1≷=us&client;=firefox-a

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:H5ira9fs-W0J:www.hsph.harvard.edu/pgda/seminars/

2007/Spring/Brainerd_Ussr.pdf+soviet+union+comparison+standard+of+living&hl;=en&ct;=

clnk&cd;=3≷=us&client;=firefox-a

Have a read, sweetheart; interesting stuff.

"o 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."

According to the papers published that is outrightly false. The standard of living in

the USSR began under Stalin, increased under Stalin, and then increased even further under Khrushchev. The "liberalization" policies you mentioned were certainly helpful and necessary. Of course; the term "liberalization" is certainly misnomer if you are thinking of the current usage, meaning a drive towards Capitalism and Free Markets.

Khrushchev simply transferred economic power from the central government to regional and local governments; or from a centralized Socialist system to a slightly decentralized Socialist system. A good idea; certainly, and nothing outside the boundaries of Communist theory.

Of course, the papers talk about the stagnation in living standards after Khrushchev. Oddly enough, this stagnation was not confined to the Soviet Union but broadly felt by the United States, Britain, and most of the other developed nations. Economic downturns were affecting most of the developed world; partly because of the energy crisis but also due to a number of traditional economic problems.

Some of my information on living standards comes from offline books and atlases so I am still researching Soviet living standards online. Since you wanted this short I will just deal with one of the most glaring falsehoods you put out. I'll do Venezuela later as well; perhaps that's another debate entirely. It's irritating how easily a simple debate can turn into many debates in such a short time.

What's interesting to me is that you are finding yourself in a rather bad position; you've found out and have admitted that the Soviet Union made impressive advancements. Not only that, you've found yourself flatly wrong on a few of your statements, main points in a couple of cases. Yet, for some odd reason, your tone has become increasingly arrogant.

Let me say that if my overstatements of Soviet capabilities were criminal your understatements would warrant a far more severe penalty than my own.

You have to admit the Soviet Union weathered problems that few other nations have had to deal with (and didn't have rich and powerful friends help them out). While the bombed-out France, West Germany, and Japan received huge amounts of money (and in the case of Japan, no longer had to worry about paying for a military) the Soviet Union had to recover from the highest amount of civilian and military war-dead in WWII.

It recovered, and its people saw more prosperity than they have had in the history of their nation (and, again, even now the life expectancy has not gone back to Soviet levels). Even though it didn't reach the highest peaks, it was still a life comparable to the United State's. In life expectancy, the difference was only about 5-10 years lower than in the U.S. (less in East Germany and Czechoslovakia). Which, oddly enough, is how far behind the United States trails the top life expectancies today.

To pretend, as you do, that the Soviets lived in abject, terrible poverty is an exaggeration far worse than mine. In my case, if I were to literally manipulate statistics to my own advantage, I would only need to fudge the numbers a little bit. You, however, need to take a sledge hammer to the facts to maintain your misconceptions.

Have I been proved wrong (or not completely correct), of course. Have you? Of course. Welcome to debate my Libertarian friend, we find out that we aren't always correct. I wouldn't be so cocky, though.

Now, let's take on that first link you posted:

The first laughable "evidence" of yours comes from a zone so far out of context that I'd wager it's origins lie in Mars. I mean really, Hammy, data from a largely rural Soviet Union still recovering from civil war compared with a largely Urban England?

Still; you've decided to take the Soviet Union from its lowest development point and compared it to a nation in a completely different situation. That isn't exactly a scientific analysis; it doesn't isolate issues that arise from the systems from those that arise from external conditions unrelated to the prevailing ideology.

I do like how you took the info from a Communist site. Clever, cheeky, but it doesn't impress me when analysis falls short. However true the statistics are (assuming they are true) they are not compared properly. (By the way, Marxists.org is a good source of historical documents, not a scientific source I respect or use in debates).

Millions of Russians died in WWI (A decade earlier), additional millions died during the civil war (a few years earlier); the nation was still recovering from those massive conflicts; a global depression that began sweeping the whole world, and the war dead of the previously mentioned didn't include the millions of people who died of Typhus (which springs up during such conflicts). We then add all of those problems the issue of a society still reconstituting itself; a society still largely rural but quickly becoming urban; we can then see why the USSR was so far behind the other great powers (in 1929, it closed the gap and ended up in the top tier, though not the top, later on).

To repeat, you took a worn-torn agrarian society in transition and compared it to an industrial society whose troubles couldn't come close to comparing. Then you use that data to conclude a nation's track record on health was horrific. The health situation in 1929 was radically different than the health situation in 1979; that you must know.

I mean, really, the malaria comparison is also quite misleading. While the U.K. didn't have malaria the United States certainly did (as it has a much higher rural population): 4,000 or so in 1929. Not a million, of course, but the U.S. didn't have the problems the Soviet did (and the U.S. was more industrial as well).

Not only that, but the statistics you mention are talking about "acute" illness, not deaths from. That is a pretty big difference. I know 4,000 people died of Malaria in the U.S., but I am having trouble finding the number of "acute cases", which will certainly be higher.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/pubs/pubd/vsus/historical/historical.htm

Additionally, I am having quite the time finding additional studies confirming what the source from Marxists.org writes; and the only source it mentions is a League of Nations piece I am unable to get ahold of. I suspect the quality of information, I again, repeat that the website is not a scientific source, no matter how much it "supports" my ideology.

Anyways, the Russia of today isn't exactly what you are making it out to be. Life expectancy hasn't been this low (in 2008) since the late 1950s.

This link not only shows you that the Soviets had higher life expectancies but also shows the difference between the Soviet life expectancy and the U.S. was small, even after the falls in the late 70s.

http://www.rand.org/pubs/conf_proceedings/CF124/cf124.chap4.html

Current life expectancy according to the CIA world factbook:

65.94

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/rs.html

Life expectancy in 1980:

67.2

Life expectancy in 1958:

65.55

Congratulations Federated, Capitalist Russia...you've surpassed the 1950s in healthcare by a fraction of a percent.

"What ever you think of socialized medicine, even those countries with it (like my country, Canada) are behind America when it comes to existant resources and equipment, the US having more MIRs per person, for example, than any other industrial nation"

I'll leave a full discussion on Socialized medicine to its own debate. However, this quote is perhaps the most hilarious thing you have ever stated. The sheer bravery you must have to say such a thing is commendable in itself. The United States could have ten billion MRIs, one hundred million doctors, and a pharmacy for every person but it still wouldn't make it (automatically) any healthier than other industrialized nations. Your favorite propaganda outlet serves you terribly in this case.

Would you kindly look up every health indicator statistic you can find? Life expectancy, infant mortality, disease rates..etc..etc. Now, come on sweetheart, how does the U.S. fair next to government controlled and/or heavily regulated universal healthcare systems of Europe, Canada, and Japan? How could you not turn red in the face for your blatant intellectual dishonesty? As I said before, even Cuba makes higher marks than the United States.

So much more to talk about; to refute, but this should do for now. Consumption, goods and services, will have to be addressed later after sufficient research is undertaken, of course.

For one, I've spent hours, days, looking up information for this debate. I don't appreciate you down-voting it just because you don't like what I am saying. If I am consistently incapable of meeting your standards for debate kindly refrain from debating with me instead of down-voting every single argument I make regardless of quality. I haven't down-voted any of yours out of respect.

Anyways, you have succeeded in showing that the Soviet Union was not up to the standards of most western nations. They, however, were not that far behind at even the lowest points. They are, in fact, worse-off as far as health now, but you are obviously wrong in your assumptions that Russian health now is down due to vodka.

Russia's alcoholism has been a major problem since before Soviet times. If you want to blame the current situation on alcohol I can certainly do the same for the past. If you could kindly show a sharp increase in alcoholism consistent with the sharp decrease in health then I might believe you. Otherwise you are guilty of the same rhetoric you accuse me of.

"I showed conclusively that you were mistaking growth for living standards, and that in every respect they were worse off than the west (whether you blame it on collectivism, totalitarianism, war, or all of the above)."

Well, again, you are dead-wrong. Living standards rose massively; every unbiased historian (either pro or anti-communist) will tell you that the Russians enjoyed a higher standard of living then they ever have. They were behind the United States and many other western nations, but even if you leave out the historic problems they've had due to war, their past extreme backwardness, and political upheavals the Soviets lived close, if not behind, their western counterparts.

It's the difference between living well and living very well. Especially in the Khrushchev era. Both my sources and your sources confirm, and you have admitted, fabulous gains in living standards in an extremely short time-span and during some of the worst calamities to befall any nation, much less Russia itself.

As for rhetoric, you rarely back up any of your statements with facts or figures, especially from unbiased sources. I have used way more than you (in some cases to my own detriment); so to comment as you do is silly. Don't throw stones in a glass house. Noone else may be reading these debates but it is bad form nonetheless.

Russia's GDP has risen very high, as has its poverty rate. GDP, and GDP per capita do not a healthier or more prosperous population make. Just as having the most MRIs, hospitals, or most advanced equipment on earth does not make your population more healthy.

Instead of a population that was relatively equal and had plenty to eat; free healthcare, education, housing, ammenities..etc.., that may not have been as great as the average U.S. household they still lived well. Now, there is a small number of people who live extremely well, a small number of people who live fairly well, and a huge number of people who live in abject poverty.

Here's an interesting example:

http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/5558-12.cfm

Scroll down below, there is a table that shows that Russians could buy 77% of the food in 1988 with their money in 2001.

Food consumption has gone down since the 1980s and all of the statistics I've seen havn't shown them going up.

I don't know what your definition of prosperity is; money sitting in the banks of the extremely wealthy while millions suffer isn't exactly prosperity, no matter how high it pushes up the GDP.

The Soviet Union managed massive gains in health and living standards while in the midst of invasions, civil wars, major disease outbreaks, a famine, a global depression..etc, in the span of decades. Why is it this new economy hasn't managed to do the same in the same time period? It's had nearly 20 years and it still lags behind its "stagnant", socialist, "totalitarian" past.

If anything, this situation should be a breeze. The breaking up of a huge country into a slightly smaller country, and the disruption in production and services, should be a rather easy thing to deal with compared with its past problems. Whole cities and towns were demolished in WWII, millions upon millions of people died while its standard of living continued to rise. How many millions died during the economic transition? Hmmm?

""They were behind the United States and many other western nations..."

This is all I wanted to hear."

Again, they were behind by a very small amount (and Czechoslovakia and East Germany had closed the gap). I've also shown that Cuba, a Socialist nation, outdoes the United States in health care despite its size and resources. They were also behind the United States by about the same amount the United States is behind the top nations of today.

But, again, declare your hallow victory; I wouldn't want you to feel insecure.

"All additional information you can find in previous posts."

Really? You have backed up your claims at some point? That, again, is a lie. I have yet to see any information backing up your claims that the average Russian lives better than they did in the Soviet era. They eat less, they are dramatically less healthy, and their pay is actually less in real terms.

None of what you have stated has been born out by the facts, none, yet you have decided you've won. You've been shown to be extremely far away from reality; while I have been shown to be slightly incorrect.

But let's not let trivial facts get in the way of your arrogant, presumptive stance.

Go on and down-vote this as well, it's all you have left it seems. You don't have anything intellectually to stand on; you won't accept where you've been wrong.

"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."

That is not in context, it does not compare with what the poverty rates were prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union. You are, in fact, telling me that 50 million people were raised out of poverty but not how many people were put into poverty after the collapse. From the data that I provided, it looks as though poverty has dropped but not far enough to have increased living standards above the Soviet level for the average person.

In other words, you are being intellectually dishonest. Only if the poverty rate is lower than it was under the Soviet era would you have met my arguments and successfully countered them.

"From the paper, "These data paint a picture of a society far behind other developed countries in the health status of its population in the prewar period......."

The infant mortality rate was higher than the west's, that's true, but, as with the adult rate, after WWII it was at the Median, that is what the 50 percentile is; the median percentile. You, apparently, don't know what a percentile is. That paper was telling you how well the Soviets did, it talked about major developments in children's health after WWII.

You've made a very large number of claims and have not backed any of them up with direct, contextual evidence. I am still waiting for the facts to back up your confidence. Is that really all you have? Work a little harder next time.

"You're moving the goal post. You were asking why they hadn't had a productivity boom since the reforms, when they have."

Excuse me? I asked why their living standards hadn't risen above the Soviet levels; nor why they havn't risen as quickly and as sharply as the Soviet Union managed to do. It is strange that the Capitalist system hasn't been able to overcome most Soviet living standards even though the problems it has faced are minuscule in comparison with the Soviet dilemmas.

Increases in productivity do not translate directly into increases in living standards.

First off; you are taking the context of the data from Schroeder and Edwards paper and hurling it about randomly.

This statement is rather telling:

"It's pretty sad when a Soviet success is getting a few kids to grow fully."

First off; this is an indirect measurement of well-being; fully grown humans means well-fed, and well taken care of humans. It isn't as if Soviet technicians managed to tweak children into developing higher.

Secondly; you seem to not have read the paper properly, as you are taking some of what was written wildly out of context. Did you bother reading the conclusion section? Do you know how to read a scientific paper? Even though the conclusion technically agreed with you in principle, it undermines you (well, and itself, actually).

From the conclusion:

"Four different measures of population health show a

consistent and large improvement between approximately 1940 and 1969: child height, birth

weight, adult height and infant mortality all improved significantly during this period. These

four biological measures of the standard of living also corroborate the evidence of some

deterioration in living conditions beginning around 1970, when infant and adult mortality was

rising and child height and birth weight stopped increasing and in some regions began to decline.

The significant improvements in population well-being before 1970 may in part be

related to the expansion of the national health care system, public education, and improved

caloric and protein supply during this period. Moreover, these improvements occurred during a

period of rapid industrialization, indicating that the Soviet Union managed to avoid the decline in

adult stature that occurred in some other countries during their industrialization phases."

The paper gave as an example of one viewpoint the idea that child growth was in parity with the U.S. in some regions but its conclusion indicated the discrepancy was small and that child height merely stagnated (and in a few cases dropped) across the regions of the Soviet Union.

In other words: the Soviet system until 1969 nearly matched the U.S. (in a couple cases it matched it, and for certain periods of time). It also took the historically unprecedented path of increasing height during a period of industrialization. It, also, achieved this from a horribly backwards position and through major calamities.

For all its faults, and I admit there are plenty, it certainly wasn't as horrible as you hysterical partisans like to make it out to be. I can criticize the Soviet Union just as much as I can praise it, but I won't stand for hypocrisy, scapegoating, and exaggeration.

I think you need to catch up on our political system. Are you actually pretending that corporations, big money interests, and powerful (and wealthy) capitalists do not exert a huge amount of influence over our government?

Through campaign contributions, control over mass media outlets (television, radio, national and local newspapers, major websites), lobbying upon lobbying, gifts..etc..etc..the corporations, the business powers have the most say over how our government is run.

None of this has anything to do with what I've said or what my arguments are. I have no idea what you are talking about.

In other words; it is perfectly fine that the wealthy have the most political power because they achieved it "freely". Anyone has the ability to become wealthy and thus achieve political power, according to you.

The same can be said of political power, as long as the system is based on true democratic or republican principles (the ideas, not the parties) anyone can be freely elected by popular vote and make decisions on behalf of the public.

What is the difference then between a representative or democratic government making decisions and having the most say or wealthy businessmen and women having the most say?

Is it not true that one is elected specifically to make decisions on behalf of the people? (or the people decide directly what will occur). Why is it that when I buy a box of cornflakes I hand over control of my government to Kellogg, they sell me cereal and decide where my stop-signs go (or who has the power to decide where they go).

I think all you have in your argumentative quiver are arrows of rhetoric. None of what you are saying has anything to do with my point of view, nothing to do with my ideology.

George Soros? You are telling me that the system "evens out" because there is a rich man who is supposedly left of the spectrum balancing out the rich men on the right? The whole problem I am talking about is the domination of our political system by these rich men and women, these people who are not elected by us but to whom the government most answers to.

Two opposing groups of minorities do not a real political spectrum make. We are still being run by two groups that are not representative of even a fraction of the U.S. population. Two groups that, in total, amount to 1% of the citizenry have the most say in who gets to run for office, who has the money to run, who gets their voices heard, and who gets "fringe benefits" for running and winning.

At least apartheid South African blacks had some representation in parliament during the 80s, how many poor or middle-class representatives, senators, and presidents have we had? How many got there without being supported by the wealthy, ultra-wealthy, or major corporations?

"although, i can tell already you're for a one party system."

Just because I am a leftist against the domination of our society by the wealthy does not mean I advocate for a one-party totalitarian state.

Your assumptions that our choices are: Control by the rich or control by a one-party dictatorship are patently false.

We can have a freely elected multi-party democracy which decides things on the public's behalf, one that isn't beholden to corporate and wealthy interests. We can have an economy controlled by the people for the people, not by the government and for the government or by the rich and for the rich.

You really need to open your mind to the wide spectrum of political beliefs and concepts out there. Try doing a little reading, venture further than wherever it is you are getting your information now, try actually debating people and listening to their opinions instead of blasting inane rhetoric at them.

Let me start off by saying your priorities are a little askew. If you value drugs, prostitution, and gambling more than democracy then I think you ought to refocus abit.

Let me say a few simple things in response to your numbers:

I never said the wealthy have 100% of the power, I said that they are the most influential. The public does have a say, but their opinion is heavily influenced by mass media controlled by the wealthy, their political choices are given by the wealthy, and almost all high offices are held by wealth individuals.

You noted this before and I agreed that there are competing interests in ideology and economic goals amongst the wealthy. The war between George Soros and Rupert Murdoch is an example.

Drugs, prostitution, and gambling are complicated issues. The history behind them is complex and the contemporary battles surrounding them are difficult to explain quickly.

"definitely not what this country was built on. it was created to make sure that no matter how insane something might seem, it should still be legal cause it involves what we do with our own property."

The nation was never built on that principle, property rights weren't even mentioned in the constitution beyond the inability of the government to house soldiers on it without payment or the seizure of it without a warrant. The nation was far less economically and socially liberal in its past; if anything is was founded on very strict principles and has gradually gotten more liberal over the years.

You have no grasp of history, you have no idea what you are talking about.

As for the stop sign example, that was just an example. You are supposed to know that it was a simple concept put forth to represent a very complex and large problem. You know exactly what the government does and the power it has, I just felt like keeping it simple and light to make it easier. You, however, decided to misunderstand it to the point of absurdity.

"not freely elected if the citizens are limited on campaign contributions, and government shouldn't censor the media. we have two major parties for this reason, because they are their own watch dogs. sites like the Daily Kos and Media Matters constantly attack any right wing statement, and shows like the O'reilly Factor constantly attack Far left media for inaccuracies."

What you are telling me is that politicians are not freely elected if the general public has an equal say in who gets elected?

Once again you have sided against democracy in favor of plutocracy, the rule by the wealthy. While this country wasn't founded on wealth I'd like to think it was founded with democratic principles in mind (even though it never lived up to them).

What's the difference between the government censoring the media and wealthy interests censoring the media? If the government is a representative one where free and fair elections are held the people actually have a say in the censorship.

I don't agree that the government should be able to censor the media, I also don't agree that the rich should be able to either.

But, again, you've decided to make up my arguments. I never said the government should censor the media, you are presenting false-choices once again. What's funny is that while you are angry at beliefs I never said I held you put forth ones that are completely ridiculous on their face.

The best part about all of this is that you are demonstrating the very problems I am talking about. The only political options you know about are the ones given to you by the wealthy. You think the choice is between either a country controlled by the wealthy or a nation controlled by a despotic government.

Your whole slew of ridiculous opinions and uninspiring rhetoric are exhibit A, you are the result of the problem I am describing.

"it kind of actually sucks that corporations don't have more power. i'm really waiting for flat tax and drugs to be legal."

I rest my case.

"you've gone from them having power to just being influential."

You've made an obvious and conscious decision to not understand what I am saying. Either you don't feel like reading my responses until you understand them or you feel it is better to lie, either way I am disappointed.

I have maintained from the beginning that they have the most say, not all of it. I have repeated this again and again and again and again. If you are going to have no respect for my arguments I will stop debating with you. You can disagree with my point of view all you want, but don't lie about, misrepresent, or refuse to understand what my point of view actually is.

"who will control the media?"

Everyone, the people. It would be a public service separate from but funded by the government (like the BBC or PBS). Private cooperatives are welcome to start their own media operations as well, these cooperatives would be owned and operated by the people who work in them and the population they serve.

No censorship, no control by either the government or the wealthy, only the people themselves have a say in what gets aired.

Welcome to a new world of thought, I know this can be scary to someone who has such a narrow view of what is possible.

"it seems you're more on insulting me than actually explaining thing, and that's very sad."

If you want to whine take your debate somewhere else. You don't listen to my actual arguments and I am not one to withhold my opinion of a person. If you don't like being told the truth, such as you having poor debating and critical thinking skills, you should debate someone who isn't honest or forthright.

It is a disservice to you, in my opinion, to withhold from you the really sad fact: you don't know what you are talking about and you have no intention of changing that circumstance.

"it's free when the government doesn't get involved. if you level the playing field (supposed equality) that's not equal treatment. hence, us losing our freedoms."

I find it strange you would find that it is freedom when the government doesn't get involved in...well....the government. Are you really trying to tell me that it isn't freedom if the government made regulations that gave everyone an equal chance at running the government?

On the one hand you are saying it is okay for the government to be controlled by a minority, on the other hand you say it is tyranny if the government steps in to make sure the majority of the people control the government (otherwise known as democracy).

What you are telling me is that you think democracy is tyranny, that democracy isn't freedom. You, apparently, are in favor of dictatorship by your own words and logic. How very odd.

"democracy is the people voting in every idea put fourth... we're a republic, where we vote in represenatives (democratic republic since we vote in ammendments too). so far, i still see the people voting in who they want to become elected officials. if the rich are rigging elections, that's a different story that involves breaking the law."

The Soviet Union, China, Nazi Germany, and many other nations which were obviously not democracies or democratic Republics allowed voting, sometimes for multiple parties. Of course, who you got to vote for was very limited (just like now). Who you knew was running was very limited.

Apparently those countries are democratic, according to you. I am sure they'd appreciate your praise.

People in the United States can vote for whoever they want; the problem is their choices are limited (especially on the national stage) to the wealthy. The media which informs them on who is running and what their opinions are is largely owned, operated, and censored by the rich.

After these people get elected they are most influenced by the rich, who they needed to get where they are.

In one case a republic's political structure is controlled by the military and/or political parties, in the other a republic's political structure is controlled by oligarchs, the rich and their organizations.

In both cases there is no real democracy. But, again, it is okay when rich people do it, not when political groups do it.

You are the king of the double-standard, I have a mind to elect you to the position of hypocritic general should you ever decide to run for office.

"can you limit power from the rich without having the government get involved at all? the business men are just going to let everyone run things? they're not gonna work hard to make more money? what's stopping them? if you say the people have a say in what gets aired, they'll need a way to enforce that. that's creating a government who will enforce this control. hence, creating governmental power over the media."

Here is the thing, no matter what government is going to have to get involved in either a capitalist media system or a public media system. In one case the government is used by the wealthy to enforce what they want and in the other case it is used by the public to get what they want.

"if you say the people have a say in what gets aired, they'll need a way to enforce that. that's creating a government who will enforce this control. hence, creating governmental power over the media."

What on earth do you mean "need a way to enforce that". If the media outlet is a cooperative there would be an internal voting system. If those rules are disrespected, if a group of people storms the media outlet and tries to take over, if there is fraud involved, if there is embezzlement..etc..etc...the government, same as now, would enforce the law and the policies of the organization.

This is no different then now; when the managers of a station say something it is done because they have the institutional power to have their employees do what they are told. If the employee refuses they can be fired, if they refuse the building they can be escorted from the premises, if they resist they can be arrested (by the government). If they are arrested they are tried in a court, a government court.

In other words, the government would have about the same power as now over content, they would have the power of law and to enforce contracts, but they would have the added responsibility to fund the outlets where necessary.

At any rate, even if the government had direct control over the media; in a democracy that isn't as bad as corporations. The government is directly answerable to us, if we don't like what they are doing with the media we can fire them through elections and put people in place that we do think are using their positions properly and in our best interest.

I don't, of course, advocate for direct government control, but it's certainly better than control by the wealthy.

"Democracy in a way does limit the people's freedom."

You aren't for freedom either, you've made it abundantly clear that you want the rich to rule us.

"with a full on democracy, the people have the ability to vote in commie laws that hurt our freedoms."

And you call me authoritarian. You complain that we can't have democracy because people will vote for policies you don't personally like. How authoritarian is that?

"it's very obvious that you're more authoritarian, and i can see why, because you wish to level the playing field."

Generally speaking, Authoritarianism decreases the power of the majority in favor of the government-controlling minority. But oh well, you'd rather slander me then listen or understand the meaning of the words you're using.

"i believe the government's role is to make sure that we don't kill eachother or cheat our way through. i do understand why you want but you want, but i hold a principle that no one (no matter how many) has the right to control my life or tell me what to do."

That's very nice; I'll order a Bart Simpson bumper sticker for you in celebration of your well-thought out, non-simplistic opinion. Whatever your opinion may be, you are not entitled to make up my opinion.

Now, you know what, perhaps my point of view is authoritarian compared to yours. Although, your opinion is authoritarian compared to a true-anarchists. As far as a real spectrum of opinion goes, I am more for freedom than you are.

Ya see, I understand that freedom cannot be taken or given by the government. The only thing that can be taken or given is economic power; resources, jobs, land, real estate, money, food..etc..etc. Whoever has control over these has the power, over you, over me, over everyone.

In the Soviet Union the government had economic power; it therefor had all other power as well. In the United States, the wealthy have the most economic power, so they have the most political power.

I, however, want to give economic power to everyone equally, thereby giving everyone political power; freedom.

You want to live in la-la land where the government is the only institution that can have power over you. A realistic assessment, however, shows that far more power is held by your employer, by property owners, by the rich than the government.

In other words, if you want to live as free as possible your way only gives away your freedom to the rich; the Soviet way gave power to the government, but my way gives power to everyone, including you.

But, again, I am authoritarian. If I am an authoritarian you are a transvestite. I'll start calling you Sarah-Sue from now on if you'd like. Perhaps I am just realistic? No? Well, if that's the case I'll shop for a wig alongside that bumper sticker, would you like platinum blond or red-head? Curls or straight?

"the true question is, which is do you find more unfair? Authoritarian power or Corporate growth?"

That sentence doesn't even make any sense. You are, again, using flat out lies to pretend that there are only two choices. Although, you keep making up these choices as you go along. Before it was, what, government power or corporate power? Now it is "authoritarian power" or "corporate growth", what on earth is that even supposed to mean?

Am I giving power to the concept of authoritarianism? Are you saying we have the choice between despotism and Disney building a new theme park?

Could you be more ridiculous, really?

Now this is a post! It's about time you got abit serious about this debate.

For one thing; you can hold the philosophical viewpoint that noone should be allowed to tell anyone what to do (within reason, as you have laid forth with cases of murder). That, of course, is merely a subjective viewpoint and is not actually backed up with anything beyond mere preference.

"nope, i believe no one should have authority over our private lives... don't get how that's authoritarian somehow... seems more libertarian."

Here is the problem; the nature of the world can be quite contradictory. You correctly pointed out that democracy can devolve into its exact opposite, despotism (or fascism, or totalitarian communism). My point, however, is that your pure libertarianism devolves into rule by corporate powers.

When you focus only on government control and keeping governments out of our lives you neglect the control that corporations, industry, and business can have as well.

In a pure libertarian system all land can, theoretically, be controlled by a single person or entity. Over time this person or company can slowly buy up every piece of property in the United States or earth. What would happen, then? If someone owns the land you live on don't they get to tell you what to do? If someone owns all the land on Earth wouldn't they make the rules?

If people have complete control over property they own and noone can do anything about it anyone who lives or works on the property must do what they say, no ifs, ands, or buts.

A company can prohibit smoking on its property, can't it? Can't a company say it is a drug free place of work? Can't apartment complexes stipulate that no alcohol is allowed on premises? If people don't like it they can live or work somewhere else.

If, say, this company that controls all land on earth didn't like homosexuality and said that it cannot be practiced on its private property, what would homosexuals do? What if this only employer on earth said no blacks or women, Chinese, or Frenchmen can work? What are these people to do?

You laugh, of course, you'd say it is merely hypothetical and that it is impossible for one company to own all land on Earth. Even with a pure libertarian system in place that might be true. However, you don't need one entity to have such problems, a small group of major employers and land-owners could own most of the land and provide most of the jobs.

If this small group of extremely wealthy and powerful people share similar views then what would minority groups or individuals with habits, beliefs, and tendencies adverse to this group's ideology do? What if 90% of the jobs in a country or the world were controlled by men who didn't believe women should be employed? What are the women of the country to do? Move to a country where that isn't the case? What if most other countries are the same way?

Maybe they could start their own business? How? If most of the money, land, jobs, factories, everything is owned by a small group of people hostile to them how are they going to get started?

The sad fact is that this happens all the time; in the United States whole towns, called "factory towns", were run by a single company.

Today, over 80% of the wealth in this country is controlled by the top 20%, 60% by the top ten.

Guess what, that means if you want to be employed, take out a loan, find investors, buy land, live somewhere acceptable you must play by a relatively small number of people's rules. If this 20% doesn't like women guess how hard it is going to be to find investors or a business loan?

This already lopsided wealth distribution would be even worse in an unregulated libertarian economy.

In other words, without the people having control over their government, without equality in the vote, and without people having a say in their lives and over each other's lives (to a certain extent) we'd live in even less freedom than we have now.

At least now, because of a government system of some equalization, checks and balances, and freedom to vote for policies and politicians that a majority favors we can at least have some say in how our lives are lived. In your case we'd inevitably have no say; it is whatever the new kings of our society want, whatever the people who own the land want, whatever the rich people want.

I am sorry; your goals may sound noble but are nothing but a pipe dream. Until you figure out a way to keep the rich from controlling our lives I think I am going to put my lot in with government, social action, and community action.

"we simply violently revolt against a wealthy individual who exerts an unreasonable amount of power (if he can actually reach that amount of land control)."

Welcome to Communism.

"remember permanent laws? how bout make it that streets, town squares, forests, shit like that are owned by no one (except for the street lights and stop signs shit)."

Welcome to Communism.

"yes, there can be land patches available for buying, but in order to protect our individual rights, we will need to set permanent laws stating that no one controls this country in general."

Again, welcome to Communism my friend.

"as for the argument thing, that's when i realized that a heated debate leads nowhere, so i decided to stop getting sarcastic (psychology thing). i've been saying the same thing, just been more rude about it."

You actually havn't been saying the same thing, if what you say is true you've been exaggerating your position through sarcasm the entire time. You are much closer to my opinion than you first indicated, actually. It's rather interesting.

Let's go back to this, though:

"as for when a government reaches the inevitable point or overpower, we simply violently revolt against a wealthy individual who exerts an unreasonable amount of power (if he can actually reach that amount of land control)."

What about a minority of the population? Not one person but many operating together under the same ideology and system? They may compete against each other (like politicians do), but more or less their policies are the same and they, together, control most of the property, land, and jobs in the country.

Do we revolt against them?

Let me state, finally, that I agree that we should maximize each person's individual freedom. Noone should be told what to do unless it is absolutely necessary. Right now, however, I am most worried about the fact that we can't even get down to providing those freedoms because our government, society, and economy is run by the wealthy.

Once we are equal noone can control us; once we are equal we can be free. And, as you have stated, once we have spaces that noone owns (which means everyone owns it equally), only then can we be safe in our freedom.

""a violent revolution can also be considered anarchist, since, that is what results from a violent revolution usually. actually, under communist rule, that is the perfect time to violently revolt."

So, if I get voted into power; say I become mayor of your city, you think it's okay to execute me? Hmmm..odd. Bet lets put aside your illogical hatred for Communists and the Communist ideology.

Violent revolutions are not particular to Communism, of course. However, violent revolutions against overly-powerful businessmen or wealthy classes is certainly either Communism or Left-Anarchism. We are close cousins and technically fight for the same ultimate goal; we have different means to achieve this end of course.

"the thing about communism though is that the government decides what is done with these patches of land. they tell the people what to do. i'm referring to make it that no one is told what to do."

That isn't true; that is one version of Socialism, not even Communism. Communism is the end result of Socialism, a stateless egalitarian society where freedom is maximized utterly.

The whole theory of Socialism, the whole reason we strive for Communism, is to arrive at a society where noone is told what to do by a government or by the wealthy. We believe, though, that government can be a tool (though not the most important, the only, or an essential tool) to arrive at this society of perfect freedom and equality.

"i see that you have a point on the wealthy have the most say (in a warped, but true way), because they create things that the people use. tv for instance. but the thing is, they created it, and the people have decided to use the media as their reference. i just don't believe that restrictions should be made on the market like that."

The wealthy don't create anything, especially by themselves. Tell me, without everyone else in our society, our world, where would Bill Gates be? Where would he have gotten the education that would teach him how to make software? How would he be able to concentrate on education if there aren't farmers making food for him to eat? What about pencil makers? What about all of the dead millions who researched and developed the knowledge that allowed him to even begin to come up with these ideas?

The wealthy are not wealthy because of what they themselves provide, they are only wealthy through their intelligence, their ideas, and their ability to utilize others, to utilize society and all of human history, to their advantage. Now, of course, this only applies to business leaders and entrepreneurs, not those who became wealthy by marriage, inheritance, or dumb-luck.

Tvs took the effort and brilliance of billions of people stretching across the whole globe and human history to come into existence. Somehow, though, we allow certain individuals to take all of this and set themselves way above the rest of us.

They contribute to society, I will admit that, but they are a fraction of the effort.

"but it once again ends in you wanting everyone to be set into equal roles where no one has a disadvantage, and i want people to have different things to work for and look forward to. this, of course, leading to some who become wealthy and others who become homeless."

People can have various goals, various talents, various desires; they can do whatever it is they want. But noone has the right to own another person, to have unequal power over others, and noone should starve because those with the power don't deem them worthy to have food.

You must see people as useful and useless in order to believe that it is right to have some super-wealthy and some homeless. I, however, see that there are many ways to make valuable contributions to society, to humanity, and that we should focus our efforts in using our own abilities and ideas to enrich everyone around us, as well as ourselves.

I don't care if there are minor differences, some people having a few more lamps than others, one person owning a car and another owning two. I believe there is a certain proportional limit to the individual differences in productivity and contribution.

Bill Gates certainly didn't contribute several billions dollars to society, to the world; he had the help of billions of people in order to do what he did. Take them away and he wouldn't have made any meaningful contribution at all.

"i think it's more about choice. and yes, i am a "tough shit" type of guy. i don't see why we should be deciding who deserves more than the other. why not let the market decide (which is us technically)."

That's a pretty big contradiction. You've basically admitted that both the "market" and government decisions are people deciding what to do with other people. Your argument falls flat on its face at this point.

"when a person rules everyone and they can't be free within that country because of this individual, it's not just because they're rich and powerful, it's because they're a dictator. violent revolution against a dictator isn't left or right, it's just people saying "we're not gonna take it"."

A dictator? I am confused, this person acquired this power completely legally. They did it without violence; they just did it by buying and selling property; the basis of your system. Why is it okay to kill them for exercising their basic right to own and run their property?

Anyways, according to your definition of what a dictator is and following the system of economics you desire you end up fighting against, possibly violently, the people who became successful because of their talent and ability to achieve within the system you yourself endorse.

When you propose methods of keeping this from happening they end up following the beliefs of Karl Marx himself, as well as other classical and modern Socialists, Communists, an Anarcho-Communists.

"take away guns

ban cigs, drugs, alcohol, porn, etc.

restrict the market and redistribute wealth

...I may actually consider it."

And if the majority of people choose to vote for these measures, will you kill all of them as well? I mean, with respect to the banning of drugs thing you have quite a large number of people on your "execution consideration list" seeing as both parties are still pretty solid on banning narcotics and a majority of the population wants to keep that ban in place.

And you call me authoritarian. You do realize that killing people because they institute policies you don't agree with; especially if these policies are voted for or supported by the majority population, is a text-book definition of authoritarianism. It doesn't matter if you are doing it "for freedom", murdering people because they have a different definition of freedom is certainly authoritarian.

"1. if one man rules all and tells everyone what to do, it doesn't matter how he got the power, it matters what he's doing now. we're restricted from any freedom, and it's more natural to revolt. you have to stop seeing things as black and white."

"you have to stop seeing things as black and white."

Let me repeat this:

"you have to stop seeing things as black and white."

Vs.

"it's either this or we give the government control over everything"

"the true question is, which is do you find more unfair? Authoritarian power or Corporate growth?"

You're killing me here, Pyg, you really are. I could copy-paste every argument you've made as a testament to your sudden turn-around in ideological philosophy.

Anyways, the point of what I was trying to say is that your system always leads to that revolution. It usually isn't one man taking all of the power through property; it is usually a small group of men (maybe women, in this day and age) taking power; a class of people; the wealthy.

When you walk into a Target, or a Wal-Mart, or a Best Buy, or the factory where you work who makes the rules? Especially if there is no Federal Government, no state government, no city government with rules regarding private property, business practices..etc. They become kings of what they own automatically; your say goes from a single vote to literally no say at all.

"2. it's not just ban drugs, it's all of those things. it's complete control over the lives of individuals. really, the turning point would have to be the banning of guns (as the NRA believes) because that is really our only chance of revolting. the people ban things and then unban them left and right, but that doesn't make it right for them to do so. but that is why wars are fought, for conflicting ideals (revolutionary war would be best example). lets say all of the people decided to ban the right to vote, decided to ban the right to free speech, do you still think it's okay because the majority of people decided it is? do you just live with it?

maybe it's just because "freedom" itself means more to me than it does to others."

When a majority votes away Democracy the system is no longer Democratic; therefor it is no longer a matter of competing versions of freedom. If that actually happened I would sort of be at a loss; if all of the people actually gave up their right to vote willingly I wouldn't have any basis to rise up (neither would you); noone would stand with either of us in the defense of the vote.

That's akin to a unanimous decision to commit suicide; I wouldn't be for it but using violence to stop it would be kind of pointless.

My job is to convince, not to kill; there is no point in killing in a democracy. Outside of one we must fight for democracy and representation (violently in defense, not in offense); if noone else on earth (or a small minority) is for it; then we can either try to convince people, secede, or take a snooze I suppose.

"maybe it's just because "freedom" itself means more to me than it does to others."

I think you don't know what freedom means, you've proven that. You have a version of freedom, your belief, and you don't believe there is any other valid version of freedom otherwise. You are willing to kill people because they ban: guns, drugs, alcohol, and other pointless things even if, say, they provided free healthcare, a democratic system of government, roads, bridges, good jobs, press freedom.....but if they ban weaponry and mental poisons you are willing to blast the crap out of men and women who aren't actually being violent towards you.

I think you need to broaden your scope of freedom, and you need to cease being a hypocrite and see things in shades of grey, not black and white.

This is what you said:

"lets say all of the people decided to ban the right to vote, decided to ban the right to free speech, do you still think it's okay because the majority of people decided it is? do you just live with it?"

I was responding to that specifically. The issue isn't that I would just let it happen, there is nothing I could do in the case of unanimous or virtually unanimous decision. The only course of action would be to try and convince people that it is or was a bad idea and then do something.

If a simple majority votes away voting rights for itself and the rest of a population we are still in rather simple territory: as I said before, if a democracy ends democracy then it is no longer anti-democratic to fight against that society or government.

Equality is one of the most important values I hold; of course a tyranny of the majority is still a tyranny and it should be fought. Even if a democracy in place; democracy is only right in so far as it is an equal democracy, a democracy in which everyone has the same rights.

An oppressed minority has the following options: secede, passively fight for equal rights, or aggressively/violently fight for equal rights.

"and i chose to walk into wal-mart... wal-mart didn't force me to do shit."

Ya know what; if you don't like the policies of this government you are free to move to another one. That kind of logic goes both ways. Noone is forcing you to stay in this country; if you don't like our policies you can leave.

Is that right? No. What you are saying is just as silly.

Umm, sweetheart; those figures come from the CIA (you know, the Communist-Sympathizing United States government's spy agency which is headed by Fidel Castro himself). Cuba's healthcare achievements are independently verified; I am not trusting the government's own accounting alone.

It's obvious that you didn't actually look at the links I gave. If you aren't going to actually take the time to read arguments and look at the facts do me, others, and yourself a favor and stay out of debates until you have the integrity to participate.

Wow. The one baby act is actually an beneficial idea especially in the sort of environmental/resource crisis we are in. They are actually doing something to help future generations where we look at it as a choice. We are the beholders of a choice that could end humanity. Lastly if anyone in this world had principles (which capitalism does NOT support) then all of this would seem ridiculous to the eyes of free thinkers (also not promoted by capitalism). If you looked at it from an objective standpoint i would believe you would be saying much different things.

What a lovely stream of meaningless propaganda. Thank you for your non-contribution to this debate, you may now exit out the way you crawled in.

Extremes of either Capitalism or Socialism can run into problems. Since the current economic depression was caused by out-of-control Capitalism and "fixing" the problem within a capitalistic framework is going to cause "pain" - such as job losses, along with loss of basic support for food, housing and health insurance - I must side with Socialism which would provide basic support for everyone, even when jobs are scarce.

I personally believe that capitalism got out-of-control because we allowed private interests to concentrate wealth and power into the hands of a few people. This provided them with the means to unduely influence our elected officials. After using their wealth to run advertisements (or even buy the media) they could also unduely influence us and sway the public as a whole.

When wealth is concentrated to the point where those who have it cannot find productive investments, they start gambling. Rather than gamble in casinos, they gamble with the stock market. They invest heavily in one sector of the market - causing prices to rise, and kicking off a bubble in that sector. When the bubble approaches the top, they sell of their assets, causing prices to drop and bursting the bubble. Since the last people into the market are usually middle-class investors with limited time and experience, they don't realize how the bubble was created (or that there even is a bubble). They also lack the time and expertise to properly evaluate the market so as to leave with a minimum of loss. Instead, they are the ones who lose their hard-earned wealth to those from whom they bought their investments. This is nothing more than fraud.

Okay, I see a lot of cut and paste on here to make an argument on both sides. I'm gonna just say it the way I see it. Capitalism originally would of worked if it wasn't for Greed. The CEO's and Share-holders had sold out their own American brother.

Corporation CEO's and Shareholders control;

- your salary

- what you can wear and not wear

- what your appearance should be

- how long you can take lunch or even take a break

- your vacation leave

- if you deserve bonuses/incentives

- your benefits

- annual raises

- credit rating

- the type of car you can afford

- the type of home you can qualify for

- and basically control your fate to loose everything

You’re a modern day slave. So why all the paranoia about Socialism? I think some people are mistaken the word Socialism with State Capitalism.

Capitalism was working until GREED and CORRUPTION began to take over. I can't see it repairing itself unless there is government oversight or socialism to be introduced to spread the wealth.