Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    There certainly have been countries with outstanding speed in industrialisation that didn't rely on state tyranny -I just don't know if you can apply the circumstances to Russia.

    Furthermore, I think living standard is the best way of gauging things, and although some states may be poorer than others, the standard of living is certainly better.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bagration)
    There wasn't capitalism in Russia before Stalin. In any circumstance, even if there was capitalism, capitalism has never caused the death of 10 million people in the space of 5 years. -_-
    1. NEP - there was a MIXED economy in Russia until Stalin's 'Great turn' led to the abolition of private enterprise

    2. I am not in anyway trying to excuse or diminish the horrors of Stalinism but I'm pretty sure that the horros of capitalism have killed more people than that in the last 5 years
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by caroline147)
    "Gun down"? You could only, logically, "gun it down" if you already had a pre-disposed concept of morality. If you were looking at morality objectively, relativism is logically sound.
    But not practically. What's the purpose of coming up with a theory of morality if it can't be used in the real world? Because moral relativism *can* be used to justify anything, even Stalin's Purges, it obviously wouldn't work if it were implemented properly. Furthermore relativism isn't wholly logically sound because, if relativism is imposed universally then the stipulation of being relativist becomes an absolutist one, making a paradox.

    yes this is true, I think Stalin and USSR still could have achieved what it did without that many deaths but I don't think they could have done it witout some expense.
    I think you're probably right there, but I think industrialisation could have been achieved with a lot, LOT less deaths; I don't think the Purges were necessary for the industrialisation - they were two separate things, and Stalin used the FYPs to justify his Purges. Possibly the Stalinist view of industrialisation - rapid and forced etc etc - could be a good one, but since it's tied up with the mass murder of a lot of people it cannot now be justified.

    If that makes any sense at all.... :rolleyes:
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Amy***)
    1. NEP - there was a MIXED economy in Russia until Stalin's 'Great turn' led to the abolition of private enterprise

    2. I am not in anyway trying to excuse or diminish the horrors of Stalinism but I'm pretty sure that the horros of capitalism have killed more people than that in the last 5 years
    Er, capitalism has "killed" nobody -by its very definition that is impossible.

    NEP is hardly a mixed economy. We have a mixed economy here in the UK.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bagration)
    Er, capitalism has "killed" nobody -by its very definition that is impossible.

    NEP is hardly a mixed economy. We have a mixed economy here in the UK.
    Likewise Stalin HIMSELF didn't kill anybody - he just ordered other people to do it for him. Just as capitalism ITSELF doesn't kill anybody but it directly leads to the starvation of millions.

    In fact the NEP was a mixed economy. Under Lenin ONLY the 'commanding heights' of the economy (e.g. large scale heavy industry, transport and banking) were nationalised - everything else was covered by private enterprise.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HoVis)
    But not practically. What's the purpose of coming up with a theory of morality if it can't be used in the real world? Because moral relativism *can* be used to justify anything, even Stalin's Purges, it obviously wouldn't work if it were implemented properly. Furthermore relativism isn't wholly logically sound because, if relativism is imposed universally then the stipulation of being relativist becomes an absolutist one, making a paradox.
    But why would relativism have to be implemented? International law does not have to reflect morality. We could accept moral relativism but impose laws for other reasons.

    The purpose? Well, what's really the purpose of anything? Philosophical theories often have no practical purpose & that's never stopped anyone before.
    Offline

    3
    (Original post by Amy***)
    Likewise Stalin HIMSELF didn't kill anybody - he just ordered other people to do it for him. Just as capitalism ITSELF doesn't kill anybody but it directly leads to the starvation of millions.
    Wait what? To make that analogy work, capitalism would have to be sitting in a dark room somewhere ordering hits.

    Even if we accept its horrendously flawed nature, when exactly has capitalism directly led to the "starvation of millions"?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by caroline147)
    But why would relativism have to be implemented? International law does not have to reflect morality. We could accept moral relativism but impose laws for other reasons.

    The purpose? Well, what's really the purpose of anything? Philosophical theories often have no practical purpose & that's never stopped anyone before.
    We've got to that point pretty quickly. Usually in P&E lessons at school it takes at least half an hour of debating before someone points out that philosophy, in the end, simply proves to us that there are no answers. :rolleyes:

    I just think that, in order to describe a moral theory as coherent, you need to be able to imagine how it would work in practical situations, but that's just my opinion...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by numb3rb0y)
    Wait what? To make that analogy work, capitalism would have to be sitting in a dark room somewhere ordering hits.

    Even if we accept its horrendously flawed nature, when exactly has capitalism directly led to the "starvation of millions"?
    The analogy is between the ideology of Stalinism and the ideology of free market capitalism - though i accept it may not be a perfect analogy.

    Under capitalism it is necessary for large swathes of the worlds population to live in poverty. It is not economically efficient to pay people enough so that they can eat. Therefore capitalism watches as the poverty it necessitates kills millions. Much as Stalin sat back and watched in 1932-33.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Stalin was gorgeous
    Offline

    3
    (Original post by Amy***)
    The analogy is between the ideology of Stalinism and the ideology of free market capitalism - though i accept it may not be a perfect analogy.

    Under capitalism it is necessary for large swathes of the worlds population to live in poverty. It is not economically efficient to pay people enough so that they can eat. Therefore capitalism watches as the poverty it necessitates kills millions. Much as Stalin sat back and watched in 1932-33.
    Large sections of the world that are currently experiencing widespread starvation and malnutrition aren't actually capitalist or even close, so I don't see how you can blame capitalism for their problems.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Amy***)
    The analogy is between the ideology of Stalinism and the ideology of free market capitalism - though i accept it may not be a perfect analogy.

    Under capitalism it is necessary for large swathes of the worlds population to live in poverty. It is not economically efficient to pay people enough so that they can eat.
    And under Socialism even more of them would starve.

    Free market capitalism would reduce the number of people in poverty to the lowest possible limit.

    It is laughable to believe that the poorest nations in the world run free markets.

    This world has scarce, not bountiful, resources.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bagration)
    And under Socialism even more of them would starve.

    Free market capitalism would reduce the number of people in poverty to the lowest possible limit.

    It is laughable to believe that the poorest nations in the world run free markets.

    This world has scarce, not bountiful, resources.
    I recommend the 'Shock Doctrine' by Naomi Klein. George Bush doesn't always speak the truth you know?
    Offline

    3
    (Original post by Amy***)
    I recommend the 'Shock Doctrine' by Naomi Klein. George Bush doesn't always speak the truth you know?
    George Bush is not a capitalist.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Amy***)
    I recommend the 'Shock Doctrine' by Naomi Klein. George Bush doesn't always speak the truth you know?
    George Bush is not a free-marketeer.

    Naomi Klein has said before she doesn't "understand economics." She is a journalist, not an economist.

    I recommend Economics In One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by numb3rb0y)
    George Bush is not a capitalist.
    And I suppose Tony Blairs a communist right?

    lets just agree to disagree I can't be arsed to carry on with this!
    Offline

    3
    (Original post by Amy***)
    And I suppose Tony Blairs a communist right?
    No, Tony Blair is a centre-left social democrat. Anyone with George Bush's spending policy could not reasonably be considered a free-marketeer.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Amy***)
    And I suppose Tony Blairs a communist right?

    lets just agree to disagree I can't be arsed to carry on with this!
    OK then. But if you really do believe that Bush is a free marketeer, I implore you to read these two articles:

    http://mises.org/story/3126
    http://mises.org/story/2116

    Not for my sake, but for yours.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    'The Ludwig von Mises Institute is the research and educational center of classical liberalism, libertarian political theory, and the Austrian School of economics.'

    They probably see Bush as a soft touch because of what? He created an extremely limited and inefficient medicare system? They would probably call this 'state socialism' - but when market fundamentalists call something socialism it very rarely is.

    The reason US govt spending is so high is because they pay private contractors to carry out govt tasks i.e. the 'bureacracy' these articles talk about - it is PRIVATELY owned. There is barely a US 'state' to talk of because everything has been contracted out (at PFI cost levels).

    Bush may not be as fundamental as this think tank but he most certainly is a neo-liberal and being a neo-liberal he is a universalist hence the Iraq war. He cared enough about opening new and 'freer' markets to invade a country (another reason US spending is so high).
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zayne)
    Hell no. My knowledge of Stalinism is limited to a module in A2 politics, but from what I saw, he was just another administration in a whole long line of incompetent, and overly brutal, administrations screwing Russia over. So I would argue, no, it was not justified in any way of form.
    That's because A level textbooks are all anti-Stalin.
 
 
 
Poll
Were you ever put in isolation at school?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.