Was Communism *Ever* a Viable Alternative Economic System?

[Virus]

im still waiting for the evidence for your claims earlier.......
but as usual i will wait and wait and wait and nothing will come from you.

West Germany v. East Germany is probably as good a controlled experiment as you could get.

 

[DC]

West Germany v. East Germany is probably as good a controlled experiment as you could get.

oh really? then you dont know much about controlled experiments. but that's no suprise at all.

 

[MG1962]

Who launched the satellites that beams signals to your TV? Who makes your TV?

Who did it first. Oooops that would be the Soviets. From the far side of the Moon no less

http://www.mentallandscape.com/C_CatalogMoon.htm

And the first national satellite transmission system?

Ooops that would be them Russians again

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbita

And who did the first direct to home satellite TV system

Dang them Ruskis are sooooo smart

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekran

 

[DC]

Your railway company made the train?

Go ahead DC, show some innovations from non-capitalistic societies. I can't think of a single one.

so you admit you can't backup your claim. thanks. you could also just have said so.

 

[respect]

so you admit you can't backup your claim. thanks. you could also just have said so.

What exactly is it that you want him to prove? That privately owned businesses invent things?

 

[DC]

What exactly is it that you want him to prove? That privately owned businesses invent things?

no

 

[Ziggurat]

neither capitalism nor communism work in their pure form.

But they have radically different failure modes. Capitalism, when it turns into not-pure-capitalism, still ends up producing the wealthiest, most prosperous, and most free countries in human history. But when communism turns into not-pure-communism, it produces stagnant, oppressive factories of human misery.

 

[DC]

But they have radically different failure modes. Capitalism, when it turns into not-pure-capitalism, still ends up producing the wealthiest, most prosperous, and most free countries in human history. But when communism turns into not-pure-communism, it produces stagnant, oppressive factories of human misery.

so China got worse when they mixed in capitalism in the system they had wich was considered communism by many people?

 

[WildCat]

Feel free to show me examples of tanks prior to the T34 with sloping armor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somua_S35

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renault_R35

A main turret gun that projects the front of the tank.

What's innovative about that? It's just a bigger gun, as was the trend at the time. It certainly wasn't the biggest gun on a tank in WWII.

An interleave suspension on a 26 ton vehicle,

Uh, no. The T-34 had a Christie suspension, and it was an American design.

or the ability for a tank to continue if it lost one of its tracks.

Never heard that claim before, but the T-34 was infamous for the tracks coming apart just from driving.

But how about this. Show me some sources that say I am wrong. So far all you have presented as evidence is your opinion.

How about you support your claim, rather than demanding I prove a negative?

The Germans clearly liked what they saw - they built the Panther, which except for a softer seat and swastika was a T34

That's not innovation so much as different designs for different roles. Earlier tanks weren't designed to engage other tanks, they were to support infantry. As the war progressed it became obvious that tanks needed to engage other tanks, thus the bigger guns and heavier armor.

 

[WildCat]

Who did it first. Oooops that would be the Soviets. From the far side of the Moon no less

http://www.mentallandscape.com/C_CatalogMoon.htm

That was a communicatons satellite?

And the first national satellite transmission system?

Ooops that would be them Russians again

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbita

1967 eh? Funny, the Telstar went into operation in 1962. The Tokyo Olympics of 1964 were transmitted to the US via the Syncom 3 satellite.

Neither were Russian designs...

And who did the first direct to home satellite TV system

Dang them Ruskis are sooooo smart

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekran

What's innovative about that?

 

[respect]

And I also note that both your examples of "innovation" are because of competition with western militaries. Competition is essential for innovation, because without it there is little incentive to innovate. Thus the Trabby was good enough for East Germans for decades, no need to make it any better.

This is important. Many important innovations involve things most people will never hear of because they aren't new consumer products, rather innovations that improve the production of existing products. Companies in capitalist countries have constant pressure and incentive to increase their own productivity which drives down prices and allows the populations to consume more goods and services.

 

[DC]

That was a communicatons satellite?


1967 eh? Funny, the Telstar went into operation in 1962. The Tokyo Olympics of 1964 were transmitted to the US via the Syncom 3 satellite.

Neither were Russian designs...


What's innovative about that?

the stellite i would get Swiss TV over is actually launched and maintained by a company that is a very complicated mix of private and state owned companies involving ex soviet state companies.
so your examples pretty much failed.

 

[Ziggurat]

so China got worse when they mixed in capitalism in the system they had wich was considered communism by many people?

Uh... no. China got worse when it implemented communism. They got better when they implemented capitalism. Go play your games somewhere else, the truth is pretty damn obvious to everyone.

 

[Virus]

The Soviets did have some smart guys working for them. (so did the Nazis) But in general they got by through stealing Western tech and producing inferior products. The West did not have to steal Soviet tech.

 

[MG1962]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somua_S35

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renault_R35

LOL if you can not see the difference between the armor arrangement on those tanks I am really not sure what to say

What's innovative about that? It's just a bigger gun, as was the trend at the time. It certainly wasn't the biggest gun on a tank in WWII.

Really? So that was the trend was it? And who claimed it was the biggest gun on a tank? Certainly not me. There are two very good reasons for longer barrels, see if you can google them

Uh, no. The T-34 had a Christie suspension, and it was an American design.

Try reading what I wrote. The Soviets managed to get Christies suspension on vehicles twice as heavy as he did - which is what I said

Never heard that claim before, but the T-34 was infamous for the tracks coming apart just from driving.

See below

How about you support your claim, rather than demanding I prove a negative?

See above, but my challenge still stands, any web site or source will do

That's not innovation so much as different designs for different roles. Earlier tanks weren't designed to engage other tanks, they were to support infantry. As the war progressed it became obvious that tanks needed to engage other tanks, thus the bigger guns and heavier armor.

Stop guessing. The T34 was designed before the war

 

[MG1962]

Uh... no. China got worse when it implemented communism. They got better when they implemented capitalism. Go play your games somewhere else, the truth is pretty damn obvious to everyone.

LOL yeah China was a modern Arcadia before communist government gained control

 

[MG1962]

What's innovative about that?

You tell me, you were the one who got all excited about beaming TV signals from satellites

 

[WildCat]

LOL if you can not see the difference between the armor arrangement on those tanks I am really not sure what to say

It's sloping armor and both those models preceded the design of the T-34. Wasn't that the agreed upon goal posts?

Sloping armor, btw, dates to the US Civil War.

Really? So that was the trend was it? And who claimed it was the biggest gun on a tank? Certainly not me. There are two very good reasons for longer barrels, see if you can google them

Yes, the reason for longer barrels is for use against other armor.

Try reading what I wrote. The Soviets managed to get Christies suspension on vehicles twice as heavy as he did - which is what I said

So? They didn't invent the suspension.

See below

See above, but my challenge still stands, any web site or source will do

What innovations are you talking about again? The sloping armor copied from earlier French tanks, or the suspension licensed from an American company?

Stop guessing. The T34 was designed before the war

It was designed for the open plains of eastern Europe and Asia, and specifically as an anti-armor weapon. German, French, and British tanks were designed for the tight roads and lightly constructed bridges of westwrn Europe, and were infantry support vehicles. Form following function is design 101.

Hell the Germans even experimented with a behemoth tank so large (ironically named the Mouse) it was designed to travel across rivers underwater (using a snorkel to supply oxygen to the engine) because it was too big to go over a bridge.

The T-34 was a very good tank, but not particularly innovative.

 

[WildCat]

You tell me, you were the one who got all excited about beaming TV signals from satellites

Just one of many technologies developed under capitalist systems and copied by non-capitralist sytems.

 

[MG1962]

The Soviets did have some smart guys working for them. (so did the Nazis) But in general they got by through stealing Western tech and producing inferior products. The West did not have to steal Soviet tech.

I think the answer stems back to basic Russian thinking, they have always been a terribly pragmatic people, and I think we see that in their design. Keep It Simple Stupid or the KISS principle has been a driving concept for them.

So in terms of say American and Russian thinking, an American designer will consider what happens if this widget breaks. Russian design a widget simple enough it wont break