- Joined
- Mar 9, 2013
- Messages
- 33,091
- Reaction score
- 23,618
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.
That's a fantastic doc whether you like hockey or not , it showed the strengths and weaknesses of their system through the hockey programThis isn't a good link. Couldn't find one. Documentaries name is Red Army. Saw it on Showtime.
My mental precision is preciseWhat's the difference between the OP's brain and a bowl of pudding?
I think that a command-style economy works for catching up quickly, but liberalization allows for faster growth past a certain point.
I think there's a middle ground there between communism and robber baron capitalism.
I made that gif just for you a while ago. Been waiting for a good time to use it.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.
Nothing, anything that an organized government touches turns to shit.
Edit- that is the norm in Canada anyways.
Wow. Sounds great. What happened?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?
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?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.
Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, yes.Anything?
Roads,Bridges? National Labs, research and development?
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?