Whew

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_Soviet_Union#cite_ref-SeemingParadox_8-0

wikipedia, i know, but the stuff on birth rates and life expectancy is quite interesting and cited

i need to start compiling all of my sources into a gdoc

@Delta Orion it would have been nothing short of a miracle for the Soviet economy to match the US one, considering how the latter has a higher population and started its industrialization centuries before Russia did.

During the Great Depression what was surprising was how all of the staunchly capitalist Great Powers (US, UK, France) were basically on their knees, with incredibly high unemployment, virtually no growth and the social maladies that appear whenever these two are present.

Meanwhile, the USSR was posting gains and beginning its brutally harsh industrialization. The Soviet economy, completely isolated from world markets, was able no navigate the 1930's untouched by the troubles that the capitalist countries were experiencing.

Spare me your cherrypicked bullshit capitalist

another interesting sidenote: most of those countries only managed to maintain a capitalist economic system by embracing keynesianism, which eventually led to a great slowdown in the 1970s

True the soviet economy was very unlikely to reach the U.S economy, so therefore it would be more fair to compare the growth rates of the two nations

the capitalist system can only survive when people are viewed as sources of capital acquisition and not when they are viewed, as, well, human beings.

also

completely off topic

gimme danger is the most fun song to practice on guitar

Due to low contact with the rest of the world the soviets were barely affected by the great depressions

depression*

just wanted to put that out there

Also a capitalist economy in its extreme, dog eat dog is a flawed system as even though there is a lot of wealth, it gets contained in an extreme minority

most certainly

but again, capitalism can only truly exist when uninhibited

If those on top in a capitalist society are monitored society will become very unfair very quick

however, once it is inhibited it slows down and immediately tears down any previous barriers that stood in its way

monopolies will form etc

Well a capitalist society needs to strike balance between too much regulation and not enough

the rise and fall of the welfare state is a terrific example

btw, when i'm talking i'll use "keynesian economics" and "welfare state" interchangeably, even though it's not really correct

just want to avoid causing confusion, i'm not the best writer

thats fine, im not either

the basis of capitalism is the individual accumulation of wealth, and it needs to continuously expand in order to survive

this is why regulations, while they have good intentions, are treating gangrene with neosporin

and also why they inevitably fail

if the power of those on top is not monitored, society will quickly grow unfair, and therefore will not be stable, productive, or anything else I'd want a society to be. I don't think it's necessary to delve deeply into why winner-take-all society wouldn't be very stable, so suffice to say: those who are starving need food, so they must take the food from those who have it, but those who have it aren't willing to give it up, so violence is the only option left for the starving (revolution!).

and now that capitalism has overexpanded and is running out of ways to expand, it's experiencing slowdowns

What do you mean

well, only a very negligible amount of capital in the world isn't in the possession of the capitalist system

and capitalism requires constant growth and competition in order to survive

now that it's running out of ways to expand, it's hitting major slowdowns

I gotta go to do some jobs, will you be around in about 2 hours?

possibly, i might be in bed

it's about 1 am over here

if i am, we could always continue tomorrow

Yeah that'd be ok

i'm quite enjoying this discussion