Were nations better off communist rather than capitalist?

[Professor Snep]

Yes, as an American I have my complaints, don't get me wrong. The justice system is a slow moving joke. Thank goodness that crime is pretty non existent here.. But for those of us who have been wronged.. yeah, it takes a toll. The info the government wants is a little weird sometimes, like every time you move you have to register in that municipality immediately otherwise you lose any tax benefit / credits you would otherwise be entitled to and have to wait 6 to 8 weeks before the mess is straightened out.

Any Dutch person worth their Herring will tell you that our tax office 'belastingdienst' is run by absolute Hillbillies wearing stylish scarves. They have made a few really dumb mistakes with me too like accidentally wiring my tax return to my ex's bank account instead of mine then taking 3 months to "investigate" where it went.. even though they already knew and so did I.

Now, for the positives.. which far outweigh ( minus the justitie systeem, ofc ):

What you read is true. There are those who work 8 a day × 5 per week, some who may be in professions like law etc, docs who *may* ofc pull more hours, likely by choice rather than force. But most mothers here adhere to 3 days a week - Mon, Tues, & Thurs, with Wednesdays and Fridays off. This is because most kids are out around 12 noon Wed & Fri, so.. bonus! In fact, most businesses hold any important meetings on Tues / Thurs bc of this. The Dutch respect family time and not burning people out, imo. And the benefits here are unimaginable as an American.

If you have a house and you make under X per year.. which is like 40k plus you get huurtoeslag. Aka- the Dutch tax office pays you 250 to 360 ish depending upon family size etc to put toward your housing costs. Houses here are around 630 to 750 a month for 3 to 4 bedrooms and a yard. You do the math..

Under this cap of 40k or so you also receive zorgtoeslag. Medical insurance benefits. This means if your med insurance costs you 110 euro per month - good insurance too, the tax office wires you 104 each month.

You get child tax creds spread out over a year which can be from 100 or so for 1 to 365 etc for 2 or 3 esp if you are a single parent / divorced.

There is a security net underneath the people here. If one loses their job they are covered by the government until they find a new job. Now ofc this means that the taxes are high here. And really steep for the rich / upper middle class even. As steep as 40%, but I say that's how it should be.

 

[Krypton]

I feel like there are so many different ways to do both systems, and circumstances both systems exist in, that the answer is kinda pointless.

 

[Vendrah]

Unfortunately, power corrupts and it's almost inevitable that an aging totalitarian communist regime will be corrupt - but the only ways of getting rid of a corrupt totalitarian government are violent, or otherwise destructive of society.

What some may not realize is that the "power corrupts" goes for capitalism as well (not discussing if "power corrupts" is always but admiting as if it is mostly correct).
At the same time that there are powerful dictators with powerful families, there are powerful superrich companies, superrich individuals and their families.
A place where the wealth is very concentrated, where the income is centralized in just a few hands, have less freedom, more crime and more corruption. This is not theorical, but rather statistical...

Gini (inequalty index):

Corruption perception index:

International Homicide (the darker blue, the higher):

Press Freedom Index:

There are some exceptions like countries in North Africa, but all these things are connected somehow although I dont know which causes which. Admiting that power corrupts, which I have some doubt on that phrase, the highest the Gini, the more concentrated the income is, there is more concentration of power in a few hands, lending to corruption and ultimately leading to less freedom. However I do believe that concentration of power is sometimes a natural event in the course of increasing corruption, rather than a cause, depending on other condition (this analysis can get quite complicated). The exceptions of India and north Africa are the reasons I believe that.

In the end of the day, there are connections between these powerful people...
Stalin and Czars werent much different, they were all totalitarians in some sort of form. Czars and some quite bad kings over middle age are connected the same way.
In countries where the superrich are the most powerful in comparison to general population (that goes for a higher Gini), there are less freedom, which make them "more totalitarian". In the end, the super rich guys are connected and are pretty much the same as powerful communist partys. Latin America followes pretty much this pattern, with dictatorship coming and going, besides being capitalist or communist, pretty much corruption and a lot of superrichs that concentrates a lot of power.
So in the end, Stalin and his family and 'pals', Czars and their "nobles", hyper-rich people, its pretty much the same pattern.

It is quite funny that people who defend the super and hyper rich as an opposal to communist think (or better, pretend, I believe most are truly aware) that, because most communist regimes are totalitarians, they are defending freedom and are being "libertarian", when they are actually supporting totalitarism in a different form.

 

[John K]

What some may not realize is that the "power corrupts" goes for capitalism as well (not discussing if "power corrupts" is always but admiting as if it is mostly correct).
At the same time that there are powerful dictators with powerful families, there are powerful superrich companies, superrich individuals and their families.
A place where the wealth is very concentrated, where the income is centralized in just a few hands, have less freedom, more crime and more corruption. This is not theorical, but rather statistical...

Gini (inequalty index):

Corruption perception index:

International Homicide (the darker blue, the higher):

Press Freedom Index:

There are some exceptions like countries in North Africa, but all these things are connected somehow although I dont know which causes which. Admiting that power corrupts, which I have some doubt on that phrase, the highest the Gini, the more concentrated the income is, there is more concentration of power in a few hands, lending to corruption and ultimately leading to less freedom. However I do believe that concentration of power is sometimes a natural event in the course of increasing corruption, rather than a cause, depending on other condition (this analysis can get quite complicated). The exceptions of India and north Africa are the reasons I believe that.

In the end of the day, there are connections between these powerful people...
Stalin and Czars werent much different, they were all totalitarians in some sort of form. Czars and some quite bad kings over middle age are connected the same way.
In countries where the superrich are the most powerful in comparison to general population (that goes for a higher Gini), there are less freedom, which make them "more totalitarian". In the end, the super rich guys are connected and are pretty much the same as powerful communist partys. Latin America followes pretty much this pattern, with dictatorship coming and going, besides being capitalist or communist, pretty much corruption and a lot of superrichs that concentrates a lot of power.
So in the end, Stalin and his family and 'pals', Czars and their "nobles", hyper-rich people, its pretty much the same pattern.

It is quite funny that people who defend the super and hyper rich as an opposal to communist think (or better, pretend, I believe most are truly aware) that, because most communist regimes are totalitarians, they are defending freedom and are being "libertarian", when they are actually supporting totalitarism in a different form.

Yes, I agree with much of what you say. What I would disagree with would be that capitalism is necessarily a disguised form of totalitarianism, though I don't think you are saying that are you? Essentially the difference is between ways of changing a government, and democracy, when performing ok, is the best way we have got of doing that via peaceful, safe and non-disruptive paths. Now that doesn't mean that democracies always keep the capitalist plutocrats in check of course, and these guys can operate over a number of different sovereign states in order to maintain their power. It's open to voters to put in place governments that will control them - it's like the military which in a dangerous world is a necessary evil. Capitalism and the military are great servants and foul masters. My feeling is that If capitalism gets out of control in a modern democracy it's not because there is something wrong with the system - the fault lies with the social culture that has produced a nation of voters who don't exercise their democratic rights and obligations effectively. That's quite different to places in the world where the people have no choice in the government and the economic barons in favour with the local regime can do what the hell they like and enforce it.

 

[Vendrah]

Yes, I agree with much of what you say. What I would disagree with would be that capitalism is necessarily a disguised form of totalitarianism, though I don't think you are saying that are you? Essentially the difference is between ways of changing a government, and democracy, when performing ok, is the best way we have got of doing that via peaceful, safe and non-disruptive paths. Now that doesn't mean that democracies always keep the capitalist plutocrats in check of course, and these guys can operate over a number of different sovereign states in order to maintain their power. It's open to voters to put in place governments that will control them - it's like the military which in a dangerous world is a necessary evil. Capitalism and the military are great servants and foul masters. My feeling is that If capitalism gets out of control in a modern democracy it's not because there is something wrong with the system - the fault lies with the social culture that has produced a nation of voters who don't exercise their democratic rights and obligations effectively. That's quite different to places in the world where the people have no choice in the government and the economic barons in favour with the local regime can do what the hell they like and enforce it.

Yep, capitalism doesnt have to be a disguised form of totalitarianism (sorry for mispelling the word, english is not my first language and I didnt finished the english course). However, a capitalism that gives rooms for lots of concentration of wealth wont have much freedom. A society that worships these plutocrats, gives them everything they want (the greedy will always complain and wont be satistifed even if they have 13313283089301289x times more wealth and power than the average), wont have much freedom.

I believe that there is more than just exercising democratic rights and obligations effectively, but, even that is somewhat connected. There is no index on which citizens actually exercises obligations effectively, but there is one related to democracy: Democracy index. Follows pretty much the same pattern of the other graph (and India appears as the most relevant exception again, so most stuff I say isnt of much value for India).

There are a lot of connections, rooting causes is somewhat complicated but what you said is a possible cause (inside a list with a variety of possible causes).

 

[mintoots]

True. I believe Scandinavian countries, Germany, Australia, Hong Kong, Singapore, and New Zealand have the best balance. Democratic socialism.

Hong kong?

 

[larry806q]

Home, yes. Jobs, yes, but I wouldn't say a very meaningful one. Don't forget that Stalin relied heavily on industry and there was a lot of factories, plants etc. Doesn't seem much better to me than working for McDonalds.

And at least in theory for the same money.

 

[larry806q]

It's better than seeing people in poverty, which the US still has today. Working with machinery seems. bait more interesting than working at Mcdonald's

You haven't seen the pictures of the bread lines in Russia in the '60's? EVERYTHING was scarce.