: Yes, you gave four examples which I promptly criticized. You then only responded to one of my four criticisms, the last one. I had assumed you'd given up on the other three. No? Then, please, go ahead and respond to these others and continue the conversation off my initial criticisms.: As to the part about 840 million in poverty you are still equating the human condition with the price mechanism. Correlation does not imply causation. Can you prove possible differences through different systems.
I said 840 million go hungry; the number of people in poverty is several billion. Yes, i can prove difference under different systems.
1) As I have already stated multiple times, Nicaragua's economy registered the highest growth rate in Latin America during the communist period (1979-1990) and one of the worst economic records after it entered capitalism (post-1990). Bear in mind that during teh 1980s they had factors like US hostility militating againsttheir economy, while post-1990 they ahd lots of capital pouring in. Nicaragua prospered under socialism and spiraled downward udner capitalism; what else are you looking for?
2)Kerala is one of the poorer states in India but has many indicators equal to the First World (life expectancy, infant mortality, birth rate, status of women, literacy). Why has Communist Kerala advanced so much more than any of the more capitalist Indian States, aside from the difference in economic system? This is the key point in my arguemnt, so I would really like to see what your alternate explanation of this phenomenon is.
3)Literacy rates are invariably higher in socialist countries-I believe it was East Germany that had the highest rate in the world. Cuba is the most literate country in the hemisphere, Kerala the most literate in India.
4)Health. the highest doctor-to-patient ratios in the world are found in socialist countries like Cuba and Viet Bam. Among industrial nations, the US has one of the lowest ratios. This could explain why we have the highest infant mortality.... In general, significant progress on the health front occurs mainly under socialist governments. Two of the biggest health successes in the African continent during the '80s (elimination of onchocerciasis and the vaecinnation of 60% of children in two weeks) were achieved in Burkina Faso despite crushing poverty, at a time when little progress was made in the rest of Africa.
5)Inequality has increased under every transition to capitalism, and decreased under every transition to socialism. Somewhat tautological, but important nonetheless. Would you really rather our country becomes more like Hungary or more like Guatemala?
Replying to some of your other points:
1)the environmental destruction in the Soviet Union occurred "not because [they] were too socialist in theory, but because [they] were not socialist enough in practice." In other words, public ownership cannot be truly "public" unless the government is nothing but teh mouthpiece of the people. to the extent that this was not fully realized in the Soviet Union, the government was able to make bad decisions (such as draining the Aral Sea) which in a fully publicly owned economy the people woudl have prevented. In other words, teh capitalist misreading of Hardin's "tragedy of teh commons" thesis is precisely backward. In teh emans of production are priavtely owned, then businessmen can drain the Aral Sea without fear, since they are not responsible to teh people. If tehy are publicly owned, then only teh peopel can amke such decsiions, and the people of teh Aral region would not consent to such a harmful and stupid decision. the solution is to make the means of production more public and accountable, not more private.
2)I didn't quite pick up on what you were arguing about why democracy should not be extended from teh political to the economic realm. If private decsiions were more efficient tahn public ones, socialism woudl not work too well. Socialism, when properly practiced, does work; therefore, your premise cannot be true. A simple case of not-Q implies not-P.
None.
