Castro says "Cuban model of Communism doesn't work"

[TraneWreck]

That's a pretty big exception.

It's almost like you have no interest in actually considering these issues and just want to try and score cheap points in some imaginary game. I take it you've abandoned the argument that 20th century Australia was in a similar state of chaos, poverty, and violence as Laos, Vietnam, China, and North Korea were when they became communist.

I already discussed Russia. It's the best test case and still not a very good one.

 

[TraneWreck]

If you want to use WW2 as your starting point, you will have to explain West Germany verses East Germany. It's the same country, same history, and same people. The only difference was system of government. Or North Korea and South Korea. Same deal, both had the same people, same history, and were in the same war.

Only difference was the system of government? Look, this is worthless. I have no interest in playing goofy games because you feel ridiculous for so misreading my argument that you thought it was relevant to mention that America had a civil war.

 

[Chris L]

Is it your argument that the difference in standard of living is starting points?

 

[TraneWreck]

Is it your argument that the difference in standard of living is starting points?

I'm not sure what exactly that means, but I'll recap my argument:

If we're trying to decide which system is better, Capitalism/democracy vs. Communism, it's not all that instructive to just point out that Cap/Dem countries are better off than the communist countries.

The reason for this is that all of the major Cap/Dem countries were already significantly better off than the Communist countries before they became communist, and without exception, the communist governments were born in savage civil, anti-colonial, or revolutionary wars.

Australia would be a very different place, for example, if the indigenous population had to kick out the British then fight the US for a decade, like Vietnam had to (French in their case).

I find it much more convincing to point to the total repression of civil liberties and gross violation of human rights as reasons for communism's failure. It is a system that is simply too easy to abuse, and it's possible that this will always lead to crappy countries, but we don't have an example of a nation that was on the vanguard of successful countries, turned communist, and collapsed.

Thus, for W. Germany and S. Korea, they had millions and millions of dollars dumped into their countries by the rich, powerful countries. The Soviet Union was never nearly as economically powerful as we feared (and then distorted), and no other communist nation was even remotely a first world country. There was no money to rebuild E. Germany like we rebuilt W. Germany, even if Stalin had the will.

I'm simply arguing that the historical test cases aren't very good. I think, however, that there is, for example, a great deal of solid economic data to reject specific tenants of communist ideology. There are many arguments against communism, the fact that Laos is crappy compared to Canada just isn't one of them.

 

[Chris L]

I find it much more convincing to point to the total repression of civil liberties and gross violation of human rights as reasons for communism's failure.

That is reasonable enough. May I gently suggest though that the two (economic and political freedom) are related?

 

[bit_pattern]

..... delete

 

[TraneWreck]

That is reasonable enough. May I gently suggest though that the two (economic and political freedom) are related?

I think that's very likely true, and even it wasn't, I would argue civil liberties would trump maximal economic achievement, if the choice had to be made.

 

[Damien Evans]

No detail too small for the nitpickers.

Australia established a tradition of stable bureaucracy and democratic institutions as well as a high standard of living beginning in the late 18th century. Like the United States, they inhereted centuries old legal traditions. Australia didn't fight any brutal civil wars to establish their government. Hell, they didn't have to fight a war of independence.
snip

Huh? Until around 1835 New South Wales and Van Diemans Land were run by a Military Governor. Only after then did we even begin establishing democratic governments.

Also, there was the small matter of committing widespread genocide against the aboriginals and taking their lands.

Oh, and the standard of living in Sydney at the time?

Early Sydney was molded by the hardship suffered by early settlers. In the early years, droughts and disease caused widespread problems, but the situation soon improved. The military colonial government was reliant on the army, the New South Wales Corps (also known as the Rum Corps due to their monopoly on the importation of alcohol).

Conflicts arose between the governors and the officers of the Rum Corps, many of which were land owners such as John Macarthur. In 1808 these conflicts came to open rebellion, with the Rum Rebellion, in which the Rum Corps ousted Governor William Bligh (known from the mutiny on the Bounty)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Sydney#Early_Sydney

 

[TraneWreck]

Huh? Until around 1835 New South Wales and Van Diemans Land were run by a Military Governor. Only after then did we even begin establishing democratic governments.

Also, there was the small matter of committing widespread genocide against the aboriginals and taking their lands.

Oh, and the standard of living in Sydney at the time?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Sydney#Early_Sydney

Notice I said "beginning?" Things develop over time. Australia was lucky that they were allowed to develop in relative peace.

It got better over time. For the indigenous population it was likely crappy, but that's another issue.

Read about the Vietnam war or the Civil War in China that led to Mao taking over. A situation that "soon improved" 200 years before the time period in question doesn't make a persuasive case in comparison to the millions of deaths and wholesale devastation that occurred in those nations. Australia very quickly established a high standard of living relative to its time period.

I'm nothing more that a hobbyist when it comes to history, so maybe I missed the decade where Australia was carpet bombed by B-52s. Australia was a colony and had immense resources dumped into it by the most powerful nation on the planet at that time. Vietnam revolted against its colonial authority and the most powerful nation on the planet decided to spend 10 years trying to bomb into nothingness.

No political structure could overcome that basic dynamic.

 

[Giz]

I'm nothing more that a hobbyist when it comes to history, so maybe I missed the decade where Australia was carpet bombed by B-52s. Australia was a colony and had immense resources dumped into it by the most powerful nation on the planet at that time. Vietnam revolted against its colonial authority and the most powerful nation on the planet decided to spend 10 years trying to bomb into nothingness.

No political structure could overcome that basic dynamic.

I'm not sure that dropping off a ragtag bunch of convicts counts as dumping immense amounts of resources into Australia. Also, I seem to remember that Japan had been rather levelled by the USA's bombers and rebounded nicely in the decade or two after the war.

Why not address the example of East and West Germany that was raised earlier? That has to be the best comparison mooted yet - same culture/language/devastation in 1945 - with wildly different outcomes arising within a decade or so, and then persisting until unification.

Why the reluctance to accept the obvious truth; that a socio-economic system somewhere between Hong Kong and Sweden delivers the greatest prosperity. (Yes, I left it pretty broad because reasonable people can disagree on just where the "best" mix is to be found in a mixed economy).

 

[TraneWreck]

I'm not sure that dropping off a ragtag bunch of convicts counts as dumping immense amounts of resources into Australia. Also, I seem to remember that Japan had been rather levelled by the USA's bombers and rebounded nicely in the decade or two after the war.

Why not address the example of East and West Germany that was raised earlier? That has to be the best comparison mooted yet - same culture/language/devastation in 1945 - with wildly different outcomes arising within a decade or so, and then persisting until unification.

Both Japan and East Germany were rebuilt with massive sums of money from the dominant economies in the world. The economy of the Soviet Union was never as strong as we feared, and even if Stalin was dedicated to rebuilding East Germany, he couldn't have done it as well as we could from a purely economic perspective.

I'm not arguing that the systems were irrelevant, just that measuring outcomes can be misleading. Notice what happnened all over the world: the countries that were economically powerful before WWII stayed economically powerful and used that advantage to invest in their allies. The countries that were weak before WWII stayed weak. The only arguable exception was the Soviet Union and they weren' remotely an equal to the US-France-England-Japan alliance.

Why the reluctance to accept the obvious truth; that a socio-economic system somewhere between Hong Kong and Sweden delivers the greatest prosperity. (Yes, I left it pretty broad because reasonable people can disagree on just where the "best" mix is to be found in a mixed economy).

I don't deny that at all. I think it's probably right.