Were people in the Dark/Middle Ages dumber than other ages?

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 10:28 am

The point about Stalin´s Soviet Union is that the bottom line is that life expectancy rose and quality of life rose. By really a lot. By degrees that have never been equalled and probably will never be equalled. Rates of growth that are completely insane by any standards.

So the worse you portray Stalin, the better you portray the system. Because having a rising life expectancy means more people saved than killed. So every single person you attribute as killed by Stalin´s incomtence, insanity, or villainy is definitionally one more person saved by the Marxist planned growth classless system. Because no matter how many people Stalin did or did not kill, the total indicated by the rise in life expectancy does not change.

So as a Commie myself, I say bring it on. Lambast Stalin with every crime and attrocity you can think of. Sure, blame him for the deaths of a hundred million people. I don´t fucking care, because that would just mean that Communism saved an extra hundred million on top of what you can derive from the rising life expectancy by itself.

===

As for Aurangazeb, fuck that guy. His predecessors encouraged Hindus and Muslims to get along in the empire. Aurangazeb whipped up religious hatred, fired all the Hindus, and tore the empire in half with completely pointless sectarian strife.

Northern India basically never recovered.

-Username17

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 1:57 pm

FrankTrollman wrote:The point about Stalin´s Soviet Union is that the bottom line is that life expectancy rose and quality of life rose. By really a lot. By degrees that have never been equalled and probably will never be equalled. Rates of growth that are completely insane by any standards.

Comparing and attempting to assign life expectancy and quality of life to any specific leader in the 19th and 20th century is a lot like trying to analyze the bumps on a mountain. The angle of the mountain is basically determined by the mountain, not by any of the small bumps. If indeed the Soviet Union looked impressive it is only because Imperial Russia was the last to be even dragged into the 19th century, much less the 20th. Once modern 20th technology flooded over into the Soviet Union the life expectancy and quality of life had to snap into equivalent levels. That is not a statement of the system other than his openness to industrialization, something that was resisted by previous governments in Russia.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 9:07 pm

Our technology?

And you mean, there aren't any non-industrial countries in the world today? Tsarist Russia was the last?

-Crissa

Absentminded_Wizard · Post by **Absentminded_Wizard** » Thu Sep 24, 2009 7:57 am

Zherog wrote:
Absentminded_Wizard wrote:Under these criteria, does Mussolini get a pass because he made the trains run on time?
He did what now?

Interesting.

Murtak · Post by **Murtak** » Thu Sep 24, 2009 8:58 am

Of course since the russians were merely playing catch-up they wouldn't be able to pass an already industrialized country, especially one that did not have to deal with war damage, like the US, right? Like, say, winning the space race.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Thu Sep 24, 2009 11:25 am

How come every time we talk about how great free market growth is we talk about growth rate, but when we talk about how shitty the Soviet Union was we talk about absolute production? Is it too much to ask the free marketeers to apples to apples it?

-Username17

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Thu Sep 24, 2009 12:56 pm

Crissa wrote:Our technology?

And you mean, there aren't any non-industrial countries in the world today? Tsarist Russia was the last?

-Crissa

No what I mean was that Czarist Russia was sitting by while the 19th century passed. Now I’m not saying that they twiddled their thumbs; they were either being invaded or were in turn invading (both easterly and westerly). Never the less, when their friends over in Europe had gone completely into industrialization, they were still in a feudal economic model; serfdom wasn’t abolished until 1861 and even then they lived under heavy restrictions.

Once the USSR emerged (which was right after WWI, which was, generally speaking, a low for the country) and industrialization became a priority then all of the technology of the 20th century came pouring into a people who were previously lived in medieval times. Freed from the semi slavery of imposed post serfdom, one can see how both the standard of living and the lifespan would dramatically jump up to the continental status quo.

The advances of technology in Europe in the 19th and early 20th centuries was vast and enormous and both contribute greatly to quality of life and life expectancy. Combined with an agrarian to industrial shift condensed in a short span, the results were obvious.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Fri Sep 25, 2009 11:17 am

And your excuse for why there have been no similarly effective success stories from rapid capitalist development of third world countries is...?

-Username17

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Fri Sep 25, 2009 4:04 pm

FrankTrollman wrote:And your excuse for why there have been no similarly effective success stories from rapid capitalist development of third world countries is...?

Because it's never really been tried? I mean you need the right pre conditions, narrowminded commitment towards change and a solid reason to gear into a fully indultralized economy overnight. (That typically requires a kick ass war; it's important because you need to somehow kill off a substantial number of people in such a manner that your standard of living doesn't look like it's being impacted; boys going off to war to die is a great way to bring employment levels up.)

By the way, I could be wrong, does anyone have the raw data stats for Dubai

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Fri Sep 25, 2009 5:17 pm

tzor wrote:Because it's never really been tried?

Oh fuck off.

Communism gets to pull the "never been tried" card. Capitalism seriously does not. We have a great deal of data on unrestricted and restricted capitalism.

-Username17

mean_liar · Post by **mean_liar** » Fri Sep 25, 2009 6:06 pm

They didn't kill everyone opposed to their modernization plans? A semi-competent zealously murderous autocracy can do amazing things. Hitler's Germany instantly comes to mind as a capitalist example.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Fri Sep 25, 2009 8:19 pm

FrankTrollman wrote:Oh fuck off.

No Frank you fuck off. Please name another nation that went from feudal to modern and at the same time going into a military indultrialization expansion phase of the order of a World War II buildup? Really, give me another example. In the history of this planet, give me another example using the technology shift levels we are talking about.

You might have Japan a close second. Feudal Japan ended in 1877. More over their industrial buildup takes place over a longer timeline.

The USSR snaped from a recovering feudal empire through into a world war superpower and then into a member of the nuclear club in a span so fast it would give most historians the bends. This was a unique perfect storm in the history of the world. It wasn't the result of a perfect system.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Sat Sep 26, 2009 7:24 am

On the subject of "Were people dumber in the dark ages", I'm going to have to look at what people have said in this thread and say "Apparently not".

No, not because they were so smart, but because this thread shows some high-class stupidity that even the darkest of ages would have trouble competing with.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Sat Sep 26, 2009 2:20 pm

mean_liar wrote:They didn't kill everyone opposed to their modernization plans? A semi-competent zealously murderous autocracy can do amazing things. Hitler's Germany instantly comes to mind as a capitalist example.

Yes. Yes they did. Go look at any of the tribes that got capitalism shoved down their throats with the barrel of a gun. Like seriously, any of them. Some of them were even islands so you have actual laboratory conditions.

Stone-age to 20th century capitalism in one generation with leaders ported directly in who "knew everything" about how the means of production and advanced economies worked, and everyone who didn't get with the program gets shot. So... what's your excuse for why that never produced the development curve of the early Soviet Union?

-Username17

mean_liar · Post by **mean_liar** » Sun Sep 27, 2009 1:53 am

Lack of satellite states to abuse and lack of abundant resources.

Done.

There, that wasn't so hard, was it?

...

Shit, while we're on it let's talk about how awesome North Korea is doing. Means of production in the hands of the workers and all that. Seriously, the idea of a badass autocracy accomplishing amazing things goes back to fucking Plato, so let's not pretend that there was this amazing communist system that created replicable results that no one has ever bothered to try and replicate despite its clear awesomeness.

The transition from a feudal state to a modern one in ANY managed fashion would have created similar results. The only thing unique about the transition of Russia to the USSR was that they managed to be so terribly backwards for so long that any functional rush at modernity was going to generate great results.

An honest comparison of 1900 Russia with 1950 USSR would equate generally with 1850 USA and 1950 USA. Whoopie-doo.

mean_liar · Post by **mean_liar** » Sun Sep 27, 2009 2:15 am

FrankTrollman wrote:Go look at any of the tribes that got capitalism shoved down their throats with the barrel of a gun. Like seriously, any of them. Some of them were even islands so you have actual laboratory conditions.

Stone-age to 20th century capitalism in one generation with leaders ported directly in who "knew everything" about how the means of production and advanced economies worked, and everyone who didn't get with the program gets shot. So... what's your excuse for why that never produced the development curve of the early Soviet Union?

Just to make sure I've got this right, you want someone to compare the relative success of an island's modernization with the modernization of the largest country in Asia, and why the island didn't turn out so well but the under-developed, massive resource load of Russia somehow was only miraculously exploited effectively due to communism.

Also, these terribly-evolving islands managed to kill the foreigners, right? No corporatist neo-colonial states or anything like that that act as extensions of a larger economic power - nope, just sad tales of good 'ol protectionism and infrastructure development gone awry and nothing more.

Frank, you're a fucking idiot sometimes.

Here's something scholarly just so you don't handwave away criticism like you typically do:

http://www.cdi.anu.edu.au/featured_arti ... ter_AA.pdf

The main ingredient is autocracy, not communism. The secret ingredient which you don't seem to give any real truck to is efficiency, not collectivism.

Absentminded_Wizard · Post by **Absentminded_Wizard** » Sun Sep 27, 2009 8:48 am

Another point to remember is that the Russian Revolution was brought about by internal groups. Even though Stalin was a bastard, he was their bastard, and he was committed to the change. In the case of ex-colonies, even if the departing imperial power happened to be committed to establishing a fully functioning capitalist economy (and good luck finding one who was committed to that as opposed to continuing to loot resources), the leaders of the ex-colonies were still stuck in a mindset of tribal politics, nepotism, etc.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Sun Sep 27, 2009 8:17 pm

Yes, North Korea is a shit hole. So was Weimar Germany. Lots of places are shitty. Hell, the United Kingdom had food rationing all the way through the fifties. But while it's in a way terribly terribly interesting that North Korea is a completely isolated theocracy and is one of the worst places in the world today, it's also not terribly relevant to the question of the Soviet success story. And it is a success story, despite all its many admitted problems it is the largest success story in human history as we choose to measure those things (result vs. starting scenario). And this despite the fact that it was a brutal and authoritarian dictatorship (a category that almost invariably has produced the kinds of terrible growth numbers of mid-20th century Portugal).

So to get the discussion back on topic and to take the high road for a moment, let's go back to any of the Capitalist forced development programs. And really, let's go back to any of them. We could go to the worst of them like Somalia and have a good laugh, but seriously let's take one of the Banana Republics of South America. According to Capitalist economic theory, comparative advantage being what it is, their production of bananas coupled with free trade should give them a competitive pile of cash (in exchange for the bananas) and access to all forms of goods and services (from free trade). With the result of them having what are essentially competitive jobs, monetary equivalents of advanced countries, and the lifestyles that advanced countries afford with those monies.

And well, that doesn't ever happen. So... why not? How come, from the perspective of you capitalism boosters, does the miracle of comparative advantage, free trade, and capitalist development have no equivalent success story to that of the Soviet Union. I'm genuinely curious. The invisible hand's provision of instant development in response to investment looks so good in theory. The math is so pleasingly self referential. Why do you have no life expectancy doublings to your name?

And yeah, if anyone brings up North Korea in this thread again I am taking this discussion straight into Somalian Indigo Plantations.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Sun Sep 27, 2009 10:47 pm

WTF?

What do you think all the Indian massacres in the US were? They were shooting people who didn't accept laze-faire Capitalism. It took a hundred years before unionist wouldn't be massacred for striking in the US.

WTF, man, Capitalism still does this, today, in Africa and other nations where money overrides local determination.

-Crissa

Draco_Argentum · Post by **Draco_Argentum** » Mon Sep 28, 2009 7:09 am

mean_liar wrote:would equate generally with 1850 USA and 1950 USA. Whoopie-doo.

Wouldn't that happen to be the timespan when the robber barons of laissez-faire capitalism got kicked in the nads in favour of Keynesian economics? You're pretty well just admitted that the USA had to bring in elements of socialism to get the common man's standard of living up.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Mon Sep 28, 2009 2:22 pm

Crissa wrote:What do you think all the Indian massacres in the US were? They were shooting people who didn't accept laze-faire Capitalism. It took a hundred years before unionist wouldn't be massacred for striking in the US.

First of all Crissa, the massacre of Native Americans had nothing to do with "capitalism." It simply had to do with the notion that once you classify someone as "inferior" you self justify the notion to take whatever they have if you need it. If they attack back you run to your big brother (the government) who has a duty to protect you and not them.

On your second point you are spot on. It took a very long time for the rights of unions to be accepted by the authorities of law. Oddly enough that isn't a unique problem of capitalism as we can see the same development that happened in Poland. Those in power never like it when others start organizing to upset the apple cart.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Mon Sep 28, 2009 5:27 pm

First of all Crissa, the massacre of Native Americans had nothing to do with "capitalism."

Wrong Indians. Dot, not feather. We're talking war of 1857. 30 Million Indians. In India.

-Username17

A Hammer · Post by **A Hammer** » Mon Sep 28, 2009 6:01 pm

FrankTrollman wrote:
Wrong Indians. Dot, not feather. We're talking war of 1857. 30 Million Indians. In India.

-Username17

You may be, but Crissa isn't.

Crissa wrote:What do you think all the Indian massacres in the US were?

mean_liar · Post by **mean_liar** » Mon Sep 28, 2009 6:40 pm

Draco_Argentum wrote:
mean_liar wrote:would equate generally with 1850 USA and 1950 USA. Whoopie-doo.
Wouldn't that happen to be the timespan when the robber barons of laissez-faire capitalism got kicked in the nads in favour of Keynesian economics? You're pretty well just admitted that the USA had to bring in elements of socialism to get the common man's standard of living up.

I'm not arguing for or against any particular economic system. I personally feel that capitalism's trends towards a neo-feudalism are distressing and that Keynesian, socialist policies in certain areas are not only morally imperative but also economically more efficient than anything capitalism could kludge together.

My point is that it generally takes an autocracy to get dramatic quality-of-life improvements in short periods, and that the Soviet revolution achieved results from its effective use of that autocratic power, not from its communism.

It's when Frank takes a singular result (Russian quality of life improvement) and attempts to convert it into a universal truth (communism is teh bomb) that there is plenty of room for shenanigan-calling.

His case would be stronger if it was limited to the scope of moving from backwards-ass to only somewhat behind the general QoL curve but it isn't. Soviet GDP growth was phenomenal and it only sputtered out as it started to actually get close to where the rest of the world was.

As for capitalist success stories, I think they're few and far between. Generally any capitalist reform in an underdeveloped country is really only an excuse for a neocolonial takeover of local resources. Taiwan, Singapore and South Korea are some examples, but its pretty clear that their success is because they've been run as military states for most of their modern history.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Mon Sep 28, 2009 7:37 pm

FrankTrollman wrote:
First of all Crissa, the massacre of Native Americans had nothing to do with "capitalism."
Wrong Indians. Dot, not feather. We're talking war of 1857. 30 Million Indians. In India.

-Username17

Crissa wrote:What do you think all the Indian massacres in the US were?

Sorry frank, Crissa was mentioning the feather not the dot. I don't think I can recall any massacre of people from the Subcontinent of India being massacred in the US.