Communism, Socialism, Capitalism, Nationalism, etc.

[karoaper]

Re: Armenian White Nationalism

I like the way you put. My ideal and utopian nationalism is very local in nature. You know, homegrown stuff. Support the farmers. Recycle. etc... On the socialist system, I kind of like Tito's Yugoslavian model where he didn't exterminate any "kulaks" unlike the mass-murdering Bolsheviks.

I know what you mean. Sustainable governance. Wide-sweeping plans are too unstable and usually create a tilt that can come back to haunt the next generation.

[Կարմիր Բ]

Re: Armenian White Nationalism

The Turks said something similar about the Armenians: www.ataa.org/ataa/ref/arm_nazi.html

They are unfortunately correct in some of their points. The Dashnags were planning to ''save'' us by collaborating with the Nazis.

Another shining gimpse in the history of their ''movement''.

But the Armenians did not collaborate with the Nazis. We lost 300.000 people in the resistance against fascism.

[Armenian]

Re: Armenian White Nationalism

They are unfortunately correct in some of their points. The Dashnags were planning to ''save'' us by collaborating with the Nazis. Another shining gimpse in the history of their ''movement''. But the Armenians did not collaborate with the Nazis. We lost 300.000 people in the resistance against fascism.

Yeah, and we lost over five hundred thousand to the Bolsheviks. Not to mention, Kars, Artahan, Artsakh, Nakhijevan...

And yes, brainiak, Dashnaks were planning on "saving" Armenia.

Untill the summer of 1943, even after Stalingrad, the tide of war was going against the Soviet Union. The Germans could have won the war had it not been for a few major strategic mistakes by the German high command, specifically the Kursk debacle.

If the Germans had won the war on the eastern front, we Armenians would have needed an advocate. That is where the ARF would have come into the picture. The ARF had the foresight to join the anti-Bolshevik war effort - with the hopes of administering Armenia once the Germans captured the Caucasus.

If you consider yourself to be an Armenian patriot than you should respect all patriotic Armenians who fought during the Second World War.

[parthiapride]

Re: Armenian White Nationalism

Ataturk and Commies Inc. divvied up the First Republic.

That is correct.

[Կարմիր Բ]

Re: Armenian White Nationalism

Yeah, and we lost over five hundred thousand to the Bolsheviks. Not to mention, Kars, Artahan, Artsakh, Nakhijevan...

First of we didn't lost 500.000 to the Bolsheviks, that is a myth.

We lost Kars due to the treaty of Alexandropol that the ARF signed. Instead of handing the government to Armenian Bolsheviks so that we can negotiate with them, they signed that treacherous treaty with the Turks . Let alone they took all of the gold of our country end left. They said they did it in order not to let it fall in the hands of the Bolsheviks and that they would return it once we were ''liberated''. It seems that they forgot their promise. I can forgive their diplomatic mismanagements, but the treason of Alexandropol will never be forgotten.

I too am not glad that the Bolsheviks armed Ataturk, but this stems from the fact that Armenia had aligned herself with the triple Entente.

The Bolshevik gave us much more than what they took.

Untill the summer of 1943, even after Stalingrad, the tide of war was going against the Soviet Union. The Germans could have won the war had it not been for a few major strategic mistakes by the German high command, specifically the Kursk debacle.


If the Germans had won the war on the eastern front, we Armenians would have needed an advocate. That is where the ARF would have come into the picture. The ARF had the foresight to join the anti-Bolshevik war effort - with the hopes of administering Armenia once the Germans captured the Caucasus.

Had the Nazis won, Armenia would be part of Turkey today. It is irrelevant whether the ARF send their anti-bolshevik troops, their influence within the AXIS was nonsignificant.

If you consider yourself to be an Armenian patriot than you should respect all patriotic Armenians who fought during the Second World War.

I am a patriot not an ultra-nationalist.

[Anonymouse]

Re: Armenian White Nationalism

A high growth rate does not necessarily mean a good living standard. In Romania, there is a growth rate of over 4% in the past four years, but there has been ZERO improvement in the living standards of the majority of the population. The same applies to Slovakia, which is far poorer than its Czech neighbors.

This is because the wealth is not equally distributed.

Living standards do not improve because of wealth redistribution and the evidence of that is the Soviet Union with its beautiful and bountiful bread lines. Here was a state that was supposed on equality. And as we all know some are more equal than others. Moreover, redistruting wealth doesn't create any wealth, it merely transfers it, thereby providing society with a net loss.

Conclusion: Economical growth and improvement in the stardards of living are not necessarily confounded

They have been teaching us this chit since highschool.

Like I have stressed hundred times all you have to do is to compare Armenia, or even Russia for that matter, of the 80's with the current Capitalist situation. I can bring you statistics that can utterly refute you immediately.


Hmmm.. I don't think you really understood me. I wrote that I actually support Free Trade.

You can try to bring any evidence you would like and you can refute me in the everglades of your mind but the fact is, you are just a displeased little Marxist and it's your ideology, as Marx said, that is in the "dustbin of history",

Socialism's inherent failure is due to what Mises predicted almost a century ago on why socialism would fail, becuase it doesn't take into account the individual actors' subjective role, and more importantly, there is no economic calculation and thereby no way to ascertain costs of production as well as cost/benefit analysis. So let's recap, under the communist model in the Soviet Union's there was no private ownership of the means of production. They are not exchanged, and hence, it is impossible to establish prices that reflect actual conditions. If there are no prices, there can be no method of finding the most effective combination of the factors of production. That is why time after time the Soviet Union had shortages on grain, on bread, on toilet paper and why you had long lines. It's inescapable and denial is not going to change anything.

And as Rothbard pointed, even the Soviet Union had to refer to world markets and prices to approximate at least some sort of price of producers' goods. That doesn't bode too well for your cherished economic model. And if the Soviet Union was such a beautiful place, why was it that if you tried to leave you would meet force?

[Կարմիր Բ]

Re: Armenian White Nationalism

Living standards do not improve because of wealth redistribution and the evidence of that is the Soviet Union with its beautiful and bountiful bread lines. Here was a state that was supposed on equality. And as we all know some are more equal than others. Moreover, redistruting wealth doesn't create any wealth, it merely transfers it, thereby providing society with a net loss.

Your lack of knowledge on economics is telling.

Very well I will back my thesis with statistics.

Let's see the effects of Capitalism after 17 years.

Percentage of Soviet Union's population in conditions of poverty as defined by $2 standard in 1989: 2%
( source Joseph E. Stiglitz*, "Globalization and its Discontents", Penguin Books, 2002, page 153)

By 1998 Population below poverty in Russia, as defined by the $2 standard, became: 23.8%.

It went from 2% to 23.8% in less than ten years, all thanks to the wonders of your free market capitalism.

Population below poverty line as defined the $2 standard: 40% (1999 est.)

http://www.worldpress.org/profiles/russia.cfm

This is just the official poverty, it is more than this.

You have been thus discredited. If you have any stats which might prove the opposit, which you don't, I challenge you to post them.



* Joseph E. Stiglitz is a Professor in the Columbia University teaching at the Columbia Business School, the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences (Department of Economics) and the School of International and Public Affairs.He is Co-founder and Executive Director of the Initiative for Policy Dialogue (IPD).)*

You can try to bring any evidence you would like and you can refute me in the everglades of your mind but the fact is, you are just a displeased little Marxist and it's your ideology, as Marx said, that is in the "dustbin of history",

Socialism's inherent failure is due to what Mises predicted almost a century ago on why socialism would fail, becuase it doesn't take into account the individual actors' subjective role, and more importantly, there is no economic calculation and thereby no way to ascertain costs of production as well as cost/benefit analysis. So let's recap, under the communist model in the Soviet Union's there was no private ownership of the means of production. They are not exchanged, and hence, it is impossible to establish prices that reflect actual conditions. If there are no prices, there can be no method of finding the most effective combination of the factors of production. That is why time after time the Soviet Union had shortages on grain, on bread, on toilet paper and why you had long lines. It's inescapable and denial is not going to change anything.

You are pitifully ignorant of economics; it's an education.

I am aware of the "studies" by the Von Mises Institute which always end up being a convoluted argument that 2+2=5.

Problem: nothing can be measured with this "theory".

How can anything be done mathematically? Or with any precision at all?

It's very much like the whichcrafts or the Kabbalah followers, who tell us "Sometime, somewhere something will happen somehow." Great, how is this supposed to be of any use?

Likewise, saying "value is subjective" is equally nonsensical (if not, moreso).

Think of the absurdity of "If I think really really hard, I can walk through walls." Now, instead of walking through walls, have it be "change prices".

That's the effectiveness of "modern" economics.

Don't read too much ''The Economist''

And as Rothbard pointed, even the Soviet Union had to refer to world markets and prices to approximate at least some sort of price of producers' goods. That doesn't bode too well for your cherished economic model. And if the Soviet Union was such a beautiful place, why was it that if you tried to leave you would meet force?

I agree with you here. The unsatisfied people were an unnecessary burden to the Soviets. They should have allowed them to depart to the Capitalist Paradise.

[Կարմիր Բ]

Re: Armenian White Nationalism

Seems like your buddies have an opinion regarding Turkey that you might not appreciate.

http://www.vonmisesinstitute-europe.org/site.htm

[Anonymouse]

Re: Armenian White Nationalism

Your lack of knowledge on economics is telling.

Very well I will back my thesis with statistics.

Let's see the effects of Capitalism after 17 years.

Percentage of Soviet Union's population in conditions of poverty as defined by $2 standard in 1989: 2%
( source Joseph E. Stiglitz*, "Globalization and its Discontents", Penguin Books, 2002, page 153)

By 1998 Population below poverty in Russia, as defined by the $2 standard, became: 23.8%.

It went from 2% to 23.8% in less than ten years, all thanks to the wonders of your free market capitalism.

Population below poverty line as defined the $2 standard: 40% (1999 est.)

http://www.worldpress.org/profiles/russia.cfm

This is just the official poverty, it is more than this.

You have been thus discredited. If you have any stats which might prove the opposit, which you don't, I challenge you to post them.

* Joseph E. Stiglitz is a Professor in the Columbia University teaching at the Columbia Business School, the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences (Department of Economics) and the School of International and Public Affairs.He is Co-founder and Executive Director of the Initiative for Policy Dialogue (IPD).)*

This ignores the central point about a market economy. It is not meant to make poverty go away, or alleviate it much less make things equal. Furthermore, there is no question that they are better off now than they were under Communism. How many bread lines have occured now versus then? How many people have opened business and thereby created jobs?

Furthermore, the percentages and statistics taken are skewed as with any statitsics. It could be that the reason there was 2% poverty, and in fact is, is that the state provided for everybody, from the lazy, to the vagrants, to the inept. The state did this by forcibly redistributing wealth thereby insuring that everyone has the "basic necessities". Standard of living is not measured in terms of poverty, but in terms of producers and consumers, in terms of wealth creation, and in terms of buying power, as well as entry into markets as market actors.

So when a standard of living improves incomes improve. For example someone that did not own his farm, now owns his farm. Someone who had an income of $10,000 now makes $30,000. That is what we call improved standard of living. Nothing is meant to make anything or anyone equal. That is the ideology of egalitarianism. You people are not simply concerned that the standard of living has been raised, but are merely concerned with the gap of incomes of rich and poor. That is the wrong measure of success. And that now with market reforms some people are lazy, not willing to work, not willing to adjust to a market economy, and where the government will not be there handing out free lunches, it's no surprise that peoplare are in poverty.

There is never any shortage of work for a man who wants to work and save. And the only discrediting you will do is in the petty and desperate everglades of your mind. You are so hopelessly desperate on trying to "discredit" this capitalism system, you will post about anything to make yourself believe that. Socialism can and only has existed in a world that has been surrounded by markets. It cannot exist outside of the market system for it is a product of the market system, a bastard child, if you will. After all, the Soviet Union constantly had to import Western ingenuity and market prices, nevermind the fact that the Soviet Union, or more accurately, the Bolsheviks were financed by Wall Street.

http://www.reformed-theology.org/html/books/bolshevik_revolution/index.html

By the way, Joseph Stiglitz is a typical Keynesian economist. Of course he would recommend more government intervention and distribution. He is hardly the poster child of free markets. After all, this is the same man that reversed his opposition to minimum wage when Clinton started to speak of increasing it. Gotta keep that lush government job with all the perks and benefits that come with being a bureaucrat.

You are pitifully ignorant of economics; it's an education.

I am aware of the "studies" by the Von Mises Institute which always end up being a convoluted argument that 2+2=5.

Problem: nothing can be measured with this "theory".

How can anything be done mathematically? Or with any precision at all?

It's very much like the whichcrafts or the Kabbalah followers, who tell us "Sometime, somewhere something will happen somehow." Great, how is this supposed to be of any use?

Likewise, saying "value is subjective" is equally nonsensical (if not, moreso).

Think of the absurdity of "If I think really really hard, I can walk through walls." Now, instead of walking through walls, have it be "change prices".

That's the effectiveness of "modern" economics.

Don't read too much ''The Economist''

You speak of my economic ignorance yet you proceed to avoid all the things pointed out. Economics is a science, unfortunately for you. If you really want to do any real discrediting you can begin by discrediting Mises on how and why he was wrong. After all, the man in 1922 predicted socialism would fail because of its inherent lack of economic calculation and cost/benefit analysis.

And yes, in economics, values are subjective. The needs, tastes, desires, and time schedules of different people cannot be added to or subtracted from other people's. It's impossible to collapse tastes or time schedules and time preferences (you probably don't know what time preference means) onto one curve and call it consumer preference. Why? Because economic value is subjective to the individual. Marxists cannot understand this because Marxism denies the most basic thing, that there is an individual. To Marxism and Marxists, the individual is replaced by the mass and its dead weight. There is no individual except the whole.

So we have explained the theortical shortcomings of your beloved ideology and all you could muster at best was to whine about how I am economically ignorant or that I read the Economist. Surely you can do better. You can actually begin your education by reading the Economist. It will help you understand things better as opposed to Marxists.org. When you are done reading The Economist, you can begin to read Mises.org and the Cato Institute.

[Կարմիր Բ]

Re: Armenian White Nationalism

It is interesting that in your whole rebuttal, not once you posted statistical numbers (with regards to Soviet Union) in order to back up your thesis. As I predicted, you are unable to do such a thing. That is of course because you are wrong, and above all, you know you are wrong.

Thank you for validating my point.

Anyhow on your points.

The state did this by forcibly redistributing wealth thereby insuring that everyone has the "basic necessities". Standard of living is not measured in terms of poverty, but in terms of producers and consumers, in terms of wealth creation, and in terms of buying power, as well as entry into markets as market actors.

There are many methods used to calculate the human development or the ''standards of living''.

The gross domestic product, as you know, is one of them. That though doesn't mean squats, because the wealth is not equally redistributed (not that you would care). The methods that you mentioned are indeed important factors in the process of measuring the standards of living in a free market oriented economy. You also ignore life the expectancy and the adult literacy.

But all of these methods, the one's that you mentioned in your post, are irrelevant and not applicable in the case of Soviet Union, for Soviet Union was not a free market economy.

Nothing is meant to make anything or anyone equal.

First of all ''equality'' is an abstract concept and my definition of equality is, of course, the economic one which I believe is possible in a communist society.

The reasons that equality deems an alien concept to you stems from the fact that you don't know what a communist society is.


Communism is a stage in human society in which the total amount of productive forces have been maximized to such an extent that supply and demand is not significant enough to aggregate any possibility of making a profit.


That of course will take eons to realize.

And that now with market reforms some people are lazy, not willing to work, not willing to adjust to a market economy, and where the government will not be there handing out free lunches, it's no surprise that peoplare are in poverty.

That is some ignorant xxxx. No serious Communist in this world will ever support ''reward those who don't produce''. What we simply say on this issue is that the workers should be paid for what they work.

The more you work, the more you will get paid, but you will be paid the real value of your labor, including the surplus value that is being theft by the employer in the capitalist mode of production.

This is our fundamental difference. My perception of value is different than yours. The rest of our argument is rather unimportant for me really.

You are so hopelessly desperate on trying to "discredit" this capitalism system

That is untrue I am not trying to discredit the Capitalism system. In fact Capitalism exists merely because it works.

But I can assure you that, just like Feudalism, it wont last for long... thanks to the Capitalists.

You are so hopelessly desperate on trying to "discredit" this capitalism system, you will post about anything to make yourself believe that. Socialism can and only has existed in a world that has been surrounded by markets.

I know where you are coming from and I know very well what are your views with regards to the economy.

First of Capitalism today is, as you would agree, far from being a ''free-market''. Laissez-faire and free markets are largely idealized concepts and that is due to the inapplicability of any idealized theory of market economy to real world conditions.

Alas ''free-markets'' will always in the end result to monopolies, it is an unavoidable part of the capitalist mode of production.

Just like Imperialism and Economic Imperialism, two tenets of Capitalism that you blatantly ignore.

After all, the Soviet Union constantly had to import Western ingenuity and market prices, nevermind the fact that the Soviet Union, or more accurately, the Bolsheviks were financed by Wall Street.

http://www.reformed-theology.org/htm...ion/index.html

What's next, the Catholic Encyclopedia ? The Germans permitted Lenin into make his way to Russia because they wanted the Russian Empire out of the picture, not because of some non-existent Illuminatis or any kind of conspiracy theories, that I assume you have been indoctrinated to.

By the way, Joseph Stiglitz is a typical Keynesian economist. Of course he would recommend more government intervention and distribution. He is hardly the poster child of free markets. After all, this is the same man that reversed his opposition to minimum wage when Clinton started to speak of increasing it. Gotta keep that lush government job with all the perks and benefits that come with being a bureaucrat.

That's coming from someone who believes that USA is socialist.

You speak of my economic ignorance yet you proceed to avoid all the things pointed out.

You haven't pointed anything noteworthy until now really.

Economics is a science, unfortunately for you.

The fact that economists haven't changed in over 100 years irks me. Look at any science: in 100 years, there have been revolutions.

In physics, in that time span, there was special relativity, general relativity, and quantum mechanics (not to mention Quantum Field theory and QED).

In Chemistry, there was quantum chemistry and huge strides in biochemistry and medical chemistry.

In economics, only minor changes (like the addition of "rational expectations" or "Game theory" -- nothing new).

Economics is simply an unscientific failure.

And yes, in economics, values are subjective. The needs, tastes, desires, and time schedules of different people cannot be added to or subtracted from other people's. It's impossible to collapse tastes or time schedules and time preferences (you probably don't know what time preference means) onto one curve and call it consumer preference. Why? Because economic value is subjective to the individual. Marxists cannot understand this because Marxism denies the most basic thing, that there is an individual. To Marxism and Marxists, the individual is replaced by the mass and its dead weight. There is no individual except the whole.

You can not prove your thesis like this. Economics is above all mathematics, which you are apparently ignorant of, not literature.

Modern economists, that includes the Austrian School, are pitifully ignorant of the workings of the economy; it's neoclassical nonsense.

Look up Sraffa's criticism of Neoclassical economics as some extracurricular studies; you may actually learn something, or even Rudolf Hilferding.

Or, if you are too lazy to do that, answer this: how do you measure demand?

"Real" economists simply use the diminishing marginal utility curve, but how do you measure utility? It's something subjective; I've yet to say "I get x units of utility from this" or even hear someone say that.

Why? It's subjective! But that means there is no way of measuring demand, and all of Neoclassical economics becomes inapplicable.

Such is the nature of the dismal science in the hands of dismal failures.

How many bread lines have occured now versus then?

At least there were bread lines.

This ignores the central point about a market economy. It is not meant to make poverty go away, or alleviate it much less make things equal. Furthermore, there is no question that they are better off now than they were under Communism.

Well thank you for being honest, if only the politicians could be as much honest as you are, Capitalism would be history by now.

So we have explained the theortical shortcomings of your beloved ideology and all you could muster at best was to whine about how I am economically ignorant or that I read the Economist. Surely you can do better. You can actually begin your education by reading the Economist. It will help you understand things better as opposed to Marxists.org. When you are done reading The Economist, you can begin to read Mises.org and the Cato Institute.

Don't worry I am reading them. That is why I just debunked them.