Interesting and Humour - page 3464
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
) Under socialism and communism there never has been and never can be PERSONAL OWNERSHIP OF PRODUCTIVE PROPERTY.
This alone distinguishes socialism and communism from capitalism.
This and nothing else.
Some mythical "prevalence" is all for snotty articles.
Under Stalin, up to 6% of GDP was produced by the private sector. There were research institutes, radio factories... And gold-mining artels have survived to this day.
Under Khrushchev the percentage declined, but still a considerable percentage of fruits and vegetables were produced by the private sector. There was a whole industry of consumer co-operation in general.
Socialism is based on the idea of social justice. The proprietor of the great means of production cannot ensure such justice in principle because it is based on a disproportionate distribution of surplus value.
But if to delve deeper, socialism - is a society in which the collective is superior to the individual, the primacy of the collective is erected because it is believed that only within the framework of the collective man may receive the maximum for his development. And that fantastic breakthrough of the USSR since 1928 is explained by this circumstance, when tens of millions of battered and illiterate peasants from farmsteads were dragged onto the construction sites of socialism, given jobs with the clear prospect of professional growth, education, healthcare, standardized working hours, housing is far superior to what they had.....
These people achieved by 1944 scientific and technological military superiority over a united Nazi Europe, after the war these people created the atom, rockets .....
And under Lenin, who introduced the NEP, even more. So?
And under Nicholas II, even more. И?
It's all rosy snot - socialism and communism are dead. Natural selection - they're just not viable.
If the means of production are not privately owned - there is no incentive to develop. the system is unsustainable.
In Sweden, capitalism.
And what socialism was, the common man did not understand.
The common man of the Soviet Union knew nothing but socialism.
I absolutely agree. But still, there was something in the USSR which prevented it from deploying the system of socialism in all its glory.
You are forgetting about one-party system and authoritarianism. These are the scourges of the kind of socialism that was built in the USSR.
And Gorbachev was right to some extent, but he could not stay on this wave. He was brought down by those forces who did not believe in socialism.
And it was he (socialism) that was torn down. Although it was the monopoly of power by the Communist Party and authoritarianism that was to be demolished. But it was just this, that was left.
And it was socialism that was abolished, that is, the best thing that had been.
)))) in 1928 "battered peasants" were dragged out of farmsteads not to study, but to build the White Sea Canal.
And rockets were created not by joyful trained peasants, but by such unscrupulous enemies of the people as Korolev.
And nuclear weapons were created by under-executed enemies of the people, like Landau.
Yesterday I was researching a topic and came across the subject of gland excision in the Soviet Union. It turns out that there was an experiment where they cut out the tonsils of healthy children and then observed the effect. That's it - medical experiments on our children. So hello to everybody who wants to go back to the USSR.
I absolutely agree. But there was still something in the USSR that prevented it from deploying a socialist system in all its glory.
You are forgetting the one-party system and authoritarianism. These are the scourges of the kind of socialism that was built in the USSR.
And Gorbachev was right to some extent, but he could not stay on this wave. He was brought down by those forces who did not believe in socialism.
And it was he (socialism) that was torn down. Although it was the monopoly of power by the Communist Party and authoritarianism that was to be demolished. But it was just this, that was left.
And it was socialism that was abolished, i.e. the best that had been.
What kind of socialism can there be under a multi-party system?
You have insisted that socialism can only be the same as in the USSR. Get away from that dogma and everything will fall into place.
I wrote above, socialism (even complete, not partial) is a particular case of capitalism. As the basis of development is placed in the NTR and the efficiency of capital.
Yes, in the USSR there was no private appropriation of interest, but there was interest. And that makes socialism just a variant of capitalism.
They have the same basis of NTR (scientific and technological development).
No development, the system goes wrong. In the West this is solved by stock exchanges and regular crises, in the USSR it was solved by the dilution of the risks for the entire population. But the essence is the same.
By the way, the lending rate itself is not a dogma, it can be banned tomorrow, but then there is no measure of the effectiveness of investment. In other words, why should I listen to that man, how I know that what he says is right.
The system of risk-taking by those who give the orders is built in the case of interest. Take it away and the loudmouths (those who shout the loudest) will be giving the orders, not those who understand something.
You have insisted that socialism can only be the same as in the USSR. Get away from this dogma and everything will fall into place.
I wrote above, socialism (complete not partial) is a particular case of capitalism. As the basis of development is put NTR and efficiency of capital.
Yes, in the USSR there was no private appropriation of interest, but the interest itself was. And that makes socialism just a variant of capitalism.
They have the same basis of NTR (scientific and technological development).
No development, the system goes wrong. In the West this is solved by stock exchanges and regular crises, in the USSR it was solved by the dilution of the risks for the entire population. But the essence is the same.
What is the difference between socialism and capitalism in your understanding?
Only concrete! Without the snotty stuff like "directionality" and so on.