What's the difference between the government controlling fight sports and communism?

[Limbo Pete]

@Trotsky ITT:

 

[kpt018]

Regulations are not communism bud.

 

[Sycho Sid]

Serious question based on the multitiude of threads you make...

Are you mentally challenged?

 

[Jack V Savage]

More to the point: free market development absolutely, definitively would not have yielded anything close to the same economic spike in Russia as central planning did. And that has influenced centralist economic organization in countries including the United States.

I think that a command-style economy works for catching up quickly, but liberalization allows for faster growth past a certain point.

 

[K1levelgrappler]

What's the difference between the OP's brain and a bowl of pudding?

 

[AnGrYcRoW]

This isn't a good link. Couldn't find one. Documentaries name is Red Army. Saw it on Showtime.

That's a fantastic doc whether you like hockey or not , it showed the strengths and weaknesses of their system through the hockey program

Fascnating documentary

 

[superpunch]

What's the difference between the OP's brain and a bowl of pudding?

My mental precision is precise

 

[TheGreatA]

I think there's a middle ground there between communism and robber baron capitalism.

 

[DickSarp]

Down with government!

Every man for himself!

We can do it, we're tough and independent manly men...even the short ones.

 

[Trotsky]

I think that a command-style economy works for catching up quickly, but liberalization allows for faster growth past a certain point.

Whether "faster" growth is the proper metric, I am not sure, but I would agree that liberalization, under some minimal regulation, offers the most efficient means of diversifying ownership of wealth and distributing economic power in such a way that hedges against and adapts to economic downturn.

 

[Trotsky]

I think there's a middle ground there between communism and robber baron capitalism.

Robber baron communism

 

[Trotsky]

@Trotsky ITT:

This is a GOAT post from the GOAT television show.

Also, I actually always really liked how Seinfeld handled the subject matter in this episode. It was funny and light, but didn't seek to deform, misrepresent, or undermine American communists.

 

[Limbo Pete]

This is a GOAT post from the GOAT television show.

Also, I actually always really liked how Seinfeld handled the subject matter in this episode. It was funny and light, but didn't seek to deform, misrepresent, or undermine American communists.

I made that gif just for you a while ago. Been waiting for a good time to use it.

 

[panamaican]

OP says they run into a lot of the same problems. What are those specific problems?

 

[MicroBrew]

Nothing, anything that an organized government touches turns to shit.

Edit- that is the norm in Canada anyways.

Anything?
Roads,Bridges? National Labs, research and development?

 

[NC252]

Regardless of your contentions (some of which I believe are patently very silly and conspiracy theory-esque given that the iron curtain has long fallen and academia had ZERO incentive to be lenient wth the USSR given that actors, writers, sociologists, and economists were routinely imprisoned on suspicions of being Communist sympathizers for speaking in ways that were at all complimentary), it is still undeniable that Russia was turned from a country with basically no industrial or economic infrastructure and no real modern defense capabilities into the second most powerful economy in the world and owners of the second most powerful military in the history of the world on the back of centrally planned economic development.

And, frankly, I don't think there were many illusions about what the USSR, or life in it, was like. While things like life expectancy, literacy, and rates of malnutrition did sharply improve and remained some of the highest in the world, individual luxury was not commonplace as it was in the post-New Deal United States and political life was abysmal. Living in the USSR was markedly less enjoyable than living in the United States for probably 90-95% of citizens. That is something that can be said without propagandizing the message.

More to the point: free market development absolutely, definitively would not have yielded anything close to the same economic spike in Russia as central planning did. And that has influenced centralist economic organization in countries including the United States.

Wow. Sounds great. What happened?

 

[Trotsky]

Wow. Sounds great. What happened?

Administrative bloat, lack of economic democratic input from the soviets, ethnic tensions, unwise spending, internal and external sabotage from private capital, failure to effectuate economic diversification.

In short, a hell of a lot happened.

 

[NC252]

Administrative bloat, lack of economic democratic input from the soviets, ethnic tensions, unwise spending, internal and external sabotage from private capital, failure to effectuate economic diversification.

In short, a hell of a lot happened.

Does this mean that a state that regulates the day-to-day lives of their citizens is a bad idea for the average person in that society? Is China a better and more sustainable version of a communist state because of their use of capitalism?

 

[Broke Lester]

Anything?
Roads,Bridges? National Labs, research and development?

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, yes.

 

[Trotsky]

Does this mean that a state that regulates the day-to-day lives of their citizens is a bad idea for the average person in that society?

Umm....no, that's not what it means, as that's not really relevant to the economic failure of which we are speaking.

However, I completely agree that totalitarianism is a bad idea for any country, and is objectively negative for the vast majority of citizens. I don't think any rational person, even those who still support the USSR, would regard its authoritarian governance as anything better than a necessary evil.

But, as I said, that's a political failure that is distinct from the failures relevant to this discussion.

Is China a better and more sustainable version of a communist state because of their use of capitalism?

I think that China's current model is likely to be remarkably sustainable, yes, as it's basically a state capitalist system that relies on the dormant centralist state to react and adapt to the global market. But I would not classify China as a "version of a communist state." Frankly, the USSR could only be considered very marginally to be a communist state post-Lenin, but I would concede some communist color due to the fact that the ruling bureaucracy was originally a right-communist group. However, China under Mao was never a communist country, and it became even less so after Deng Xiaoping.