Serious answers only

serious answers only

How come capitalist European countries developed better than socialist countries?

Why were Soviets and their allies worse at developing their economy?

Other urls found in this thread:

Capitalism grows faster, at cancerous, destructive rates in fact - Anyone who isn't a brainlet will admit this fact. It's good short-term, but as of late its effects on the environment and its people have been much more pronounced. Only sheltered suburbanites haven't seen that capitalism is going to fail sometime very soon.

Because america poured a fuck load of money in them countries. America had more money than the soviet union

Up until the 1970s/80s it was basically all due to massive amounts of American investment. That's it.

Unlike the eco-village that was the eastern-bloc…

It always surprises me how it is the far-left who believes economic development is just a matter of throwing money at things.

They lived under monarchy and didn't properly develop capitalism. They had to fucking kick start themselves of fucking die.

*or fucking die

Imperialism. The third world allies of the Soviets were net drains on the economy of the USSR, while those of the western powers saw their mineral wealth and fertility exploited on a massive scale. This greatly increased the wealth available for investment purposes. Besides this, the Soviet Union was in much worse shape than the USA after the second world war, having lost a significant portion of it's industrial base and having its most fertile areas ravaged, leaving it much less prepared to rebuild other countries than the virtually untouched USA.

Because marxism-leninism is a terrible model.

Because it is a more rational way of explaining our interaction with the world and each other.

Most of the East bloc countries were far less developed than Western Europe to start with.

Are you denying the massively positive effect that the Marshall Plan has on European economies? It was literally designed to accelerate economic development and recovery.

So if they won, there wouldn't be a whale left anymore, because we gotta kickstart?

I've got this business, it will develop into a great business, and all needs for that is your money and lots of it! It's the secret of investing, you just throw money at something -doesn't matter what- and then it grows!

What I'm denying is that the positive effects the Marshall Plan had on European economies (which weren't all positive at all) imply that those effects would have been present in every place where a comparable amount of funds and aid would have been invested in.

US AID as a form of patronage to keep them from switching sides.

But Eastern Europe actually grew faster than Western Europe for sometime the model really only started to stagnate in the late 70s/80s


Which doesn't mean anything on itself, or you must believe that North Korea and Zimbabwe have a better economic system than Norway.

I thought the basic economics meme was just that, but the sort of illiteracy displayed here shows that marxists aren't merely ignorant, but also lack logical faculty.

oh look the ancap ends up displaying his sophistry for all to see when his arguments are even slightly challenged just like always

Even if we assume tthat arguement is incorrect, you never provided a rebutal, so fuck off


Seems you are even dumber than I thought, and don't understand how the economies of Zimbabwe and North Korea growing faster than Norway's economy does not mean that they are better functioning.

My gott the ideology.

Literally yes, what do you not understand? Obviously you can run something into the ground, but you are being an obstinate faggot. INB4 you say medical treatment can't fix disease because you can still die afterwards.

Life truly is grand.

I don't understand how investments can still be a loss with this line of logic being correct.
The evidence is the return of investment not being equal for every investment made.

Someone hasn't read an economics textbook


What base do you have for believing that the return of investment will be the same for every country?

Better functioning in what sense? Do you mean in providing a decent standard of living? Or providing a hefty return on capital invested the actual aim of capitalism?

If you mean the former it was covered by the fact that Eastern Europe was far less developed than the West. And you can’t just wish that fact away, if my economy is five times larger than yours at the starting line and I grow at 1% a year then you have to grow at 5% a year just to stand-still in a race against me.

On the second point, the function of capitalism is to make profits for the owners of capital and as long as it is doing that it’s functioning “just fine”.


This presupposes equality of ability in managing funds. That is not the case, otherwise any business that has enough money pumped into it would just succeed. It would be a paper tiger if they are incapable of handing their funds.

Good question, for which I have no ultimate answer. In any case, I do not base it solely in growth percentages, unlike the people I'm arguing with.
Capitalism doesn't have a function, it contains functions.

They were worse at developing their science. They literally called certain topics too bourgeois to study.

Fam that’s literally it’s only function - everything else is a byproduct.

That's begging the question.

Because capitalism motivates people to be the best at what they do under competition. Socialism is for lazy and stupid people who don't know how the world works.

The soviet union had better living conditions than their predecessors and successors.

That is such a childish view on capitalism.

You need to lurk more.

ad hoc answer with what could be read as soft neoliberal undertones but that isn't the case: better integration into the "global economy"
despite the degree of protectionism and regulation involved this situation did allow greater foreign investment, etc. It just operated with some stipulations - if you're going to build a factory in our country, you have to built it in an area of unemployment, you have to work with unions, etc.

it's not as simple as "america poured in money" which implies governmental action, american companies poured in money, domestic companies signed contracts with american companies for mutual gain, and so on. British people bought Swedish cars on a much greater level than anyone in the west bought Ladas.

There is also the problem that you can't (couldn't?) really centrally plan consumerism since it's a bit of a runaway train, which helped to cap things a bit. I'll venture that since the USSR had much greater control over it's satellites than America, problems within the USSR proper prevented innovative solutions in the entire bloc. On top of this there are problems of maintaining political control, and of a much weaker economy having to give much larger shares of resources to the military with (usually) poorer technological runoffs into civilian technology.

How is it begging the question, retard? Explain to me how capitalism can function without making profit for its investors. Or how capitalism has any other purpose beyond making money for the capitalists. I’ll wait.

Everything else is incidental, workers have to be paid because they will starve to death and deprive the capitalists of a suitable workforce otherwise. Full employment from the perspective of the capitalists and not the workers is only attained when it’s profitable enough to do a fuckton of new hires when businesses suddenly become unprofitable during a crisis they let go of their workforce’s like a hot potato. Investors quit investing until the economic climate produces a decent steady return again, making the crisis worse typically but such humanitarian concerns are left to the state which investors the profit from its deficit-spending which produces bond-payments at interest for wealthy investors

Many, if not all, of the capitalist European countries took part in or benefited from the imperialist practices that were in place from decades before, whereas many of the eastern bloc and other socialist nations were either carved out of the old empires or broke off from their imperialist exploiters in the years after WWII and have had to try to catch up ever since with hurdles added by capitalists. The fighting in Western Europe was relatively light compared to the carnage that was the Eastern front which took such a toll on the Soviet Union. America ended the war essentially unscathed and because of that able to serve as Western Europe's benefactor in the form of the Marshall Plan meanwhile the Soviet Union had its own problems of post-war recovery. This is not to say that the Eastern Bloc was a backwater that never recovered from WWII as that would be demonstrably false but the capitalist West had a head start that began decades ago meanwhile the East and former colonies were hamstrung by imperialism and WWII.

Because free market capitalism works somewhat better than centrally planned capitalism.

A combination of political proximity to capital accumulation in the United States, imperialist practices, the USSR's implementation of state capitalism being highly bureaucratic and suppressive of new ideas, and the USSR stat being highly bureaucratic and suppressive of dissent.

Thanks to the immortal science of 1st Baron John Maynard Keynes

Oh you mean all those socdem countries with super high taxes?

Oh, yeah, as par and , early on in the cold war the West also were mostly state capitalist, just in a more humane way to the USSR.

So you start off your own thread with a standard you can't even define, but ebil gommies sure sucked and heavenly capitalists are great at it?

Your OP literally translates to:

Eurochic was huge in America up to the late 80s.

To a materialist, the means of production ultimately boil down to money.

Socialistic European countries are some of the most flourishing throughout Europe, and the world; see Russia, Denmark, Finland, Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Ireland, Belgium, etc.

Countries in Europe (# = GDP ranking, C = absolute free market capitalism, S = socialism, CS = mixed market capitalism with socialist protections):

Albania (125, S)
Andorra (-, C)
Armenia (133, CS)
Austria (30, CS)
Azerbaijan (94, CS)
Belarus (79, S)
Belgium (25, CS)
Bosnia and Herzegovina (114, CS)
Bulgaria (82, CS)
Croatia (84, CS)
Cyprus (113, CS)
Czech Republic (51, CS)
Denmark (38, CS)
Estonia (104, CS)
Finland (46, CS)
France (7, CS)
Georgia (123, CS)
Germany (4, CS)
Greece (52, CS)
Hungary (59, S)
Iceland (107, CS)
Ireland (39, CS)
Italy (9, CS)
Kazakhstan (57 CS)
Kosovo (147, CS)
Latvia (100, CS)
Liechtenstein (-, CS)
Lithuania (87, CS)
Luxembourg (75, CS)
Macedonia (132, CS)
Malta (131, CS)
Moldova (143, S)
Monaco (-, CS)
Montenegro (155, CS)
Netherlands (18, CS)
Norway (29, CS)
Poland (24,S)
Portugal (49, CS)
Romania (53, CS)
Russia (11, S)
San Marino (170, CS)
Serbia (95, CS)
Slovakia (66, CS)
Slovenia (86, CS)
Spain (14, CS)
Sweden (23, CS)
Switzerland (20, CS)
Turkey (17, CS)
Ukraine (65, S)
United Kingdom (5, CS)
Vatican City (-, CS)

Go back to reddit, socialism is not when the government does stuff.

It's about throwing money at the right things, and not being a spooked austerityfag

Because they were economically underdeveloped prior to Marxism Leninism. In 1939 the UK, France and others were lightyears ahead of Bulgaria, Yugoslavia and Romania.

More like all of the USSR except for the bigger cities.

Eh even Petrograd was behind cities like London, Paris, Berlin, Amsterdam and Brussels. But yeah, Turkestan and Kazakhstan were basically colonies by the time of the USSR and the Caucasus was like Persia or the Ottoman Empire.

Imperialism. And also

It seems you disagree with something… but of the two of us, I'm not the only one who doesn't know what that is.

Equating development with consumerism was one of Porky's most insidious cultural coups.

You list " mixture of capitalism and socialism" like a classic rose.

Socialism is the negation of capitalism read Marx. If you have problem with that, join the lib dems.

mixed economy social democracy is SOCDEM


a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism.

(in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism.

I have read Marx. I prefer Trotsky, though am neither a "Trotsky-ist" nor a "Rose".

Social Democracy is a political state. A mixed economy is a…
…wait for it…
…economic system.





In what sense? Marxist-Leninist states developed at a pace faster than that of comparable capitalist countries. The fact that Western nations which had undergone industrialisation literally a century or more before the Eastern European states were more developed than them is just a useless truism.

The question is whether or not Marxism-Leninism improved standards of living for these people at a faster rate than capitalism would have, and I believe it certainly did; enormously so.

The definition he gave wasn't of communism, it was the definition of socialism.

You're not a socialist, you're a SocDem (read: capitalism with a kind face).


a political and economic theory of social organization that ADVOCATES that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

(in Marxist theory) A TRANSITIONAL SOCIAL STATE between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of COMMUNISM.

To be accurate, I am a Metropolitan Democratic Socialist.

looking at your bolded elements and laughing like a hyena at the idea that 1800s britain with a single communist MP would be socialist because someone ADVOCATES that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole, and because imperialist capitalism is an element of the TRANSITIONAL SOCIAL STATE.

You still support private ownership of the means of production, ergo you are not a socialist. Also, you clearly haven't read Marx if you seriously think the transitional state would be anything like a SocDem state.

There's a reading list a few posts down if you go back on the board proper.

i feel like you gleaned that from the stupid 8values test.
(pic related is wrong, every answer i gave is firmly social democratic.)

No, you're a SocDem.



I far too often refer to Cosmopolitan(ism) (global - or literally cosmic - political perspective) as Metropolitan(ism) (political perspective from one's surrounding area).

I am, rather, a Cosmopolitan Democratic Socialist.

In truth, 19th century Britain would have shared elements of socialism without any formal socialist representation - whatsoever. Democracy is itself an element of socialism, as are any and all formal protections of the public from market forces or expressions of collective universal will.

One need not organize a vanguard to oppose private ownership of the means of production of public goods and/or services.

Social Democratic states can take almost limitless forms, as can Socialist States, and very often, they two are synonymous. Socialist states that are social, but not democratic, or democratic, but not social, are rare. Social Democratic states that do not advocate for the welfare of the people of which they are comprised are very curious, indeed.

You are inexplicably ignorant.

Poland is beyond redemption, it's neoliberal shithole and "anticommunism" and classcuckoldry here are on the same level as in the USA, if not worse

please gulag all of these disingenuous "Holla Forumsyp larps as curious centrist but gets furious when you actually give him an answer" threads

this is the only "answer" op actually wants

Because capitalism channels personal greed and ambition in a way that benefits society as a whole (with govt. regulation and infrastructure), while communism treats human beings as interchangeable ants with no inherent value.

Capitalism is flawed, while communism is awful.

if that's true of capitalism then why does it require government regulation and infrastructure?

Socialist countries actually developed faster, it took the Soviets 30 years to go from the middle ages to space. Anyway:

1.) European countries were already fully industrialized, actually already in the process of outsourcing productive forces, whereas socialist countries weren't industrialized at all

2.) The West was much bigger and richer than the Eastern Bloc, so they could economically cooperate, as in: Boost countries that are backwards such as South Korea or Germany which was destroyed by the war, South Korea and Germany got billions of money pumped into their economy and got massive investments while the DPRK and the GDR did not. GDR had to pay reparations even. Sure Soviets helped many socialist countries too, but they were destroyed by the war themselves

3.) Imperialism. Socialist states weren't imperialist (I'm talking economically here, please no sperg out) so they had no access to precarious labor

4.) Sabotage. See Cuba and the DPRK. People make fun of East Germans who didn't have bananas, well, how the fuck are they supposed to get bananas when the entire Eastern Bloc cold as fuck?

All this is to be seen in the context that socialist countries actually did keep up, do you see much improvement in the ex-socialist countries under capitalism?

Profits don't benefit society though.


This feels like some weirdo "bigbrain wojack" shit as an attempt to hide the fact YOU HAVEN'T EVEN READ MARX.

Answer is simple: being a 'socialist' country in 20th century was a way for capitalist periphery to industrialize and modernize. So the question becomes: why do some regions of the world-system were less developed in the first place.

i suppose your own replies don't have to follow this rule

Because the regulation is how capitalism is channeled, and because capitalism isn't very good at infrastructure (as demonstrated by the US).

That's what taxes are for.