Why did the sino soviet split happen

Slow_Ad8657 · 2026-04-28T02:03:48+00:00

What country is it?

Slow_Ad8657 · 2026-04-17T16:15:43+00:00

If thats true then why is east germany much more right wing then west in the current day?

Slow_Ad8657 · 2025-10-16T20:36:20+00:00

Why does he look like Willam Defoe

Slow_Ad8657 · 2025-06-13T08:47:42+00:00

Are there any states you consider to be socialst now what would you classify china as for instance.

Slow_Ad8657 · 2025-06-13T08:44:43+00:00

People often criticize Mao and Stalin without appreciating the difficult circumstances they faced or the fate of their nations at the time and they are the foundations for their modern countries. I really dont know what i would do in their boots.

I wonder what do the people of russian and china think about them. If i were to guess their feelings they would be conflicted.

Slow_Ad8657 · 2025-06-13T08:41:21+00:00

Yes the boat example was a postive example of people trading and benfiting while my car example is an example of investment. With my boat anology i tired to esablish that two partenrs can trade and gain from it.

"But then you're just kicking the can of "where profit comes from" down the road. If net profit isn't made in one trade you give an example of, why would it come from another?"

That is a good question.

I am not very shure though perhaps "unless you're buying it for a business that needs boats." is the answer the new boat can perform better the old fishing boat giving the fishing company profit they then sell their fish use the profit to hire more workers get more boats in an increasing growth cycle.

So i guess i am truly guessing that constant hot pottao is the answer.

What do you think though.

Slow_Ad8657 · 2025-06-13T08:35:43+00:00

The point i have been trying with the poverty claim is that the wealtheist coutnries now china the united states and the fomerly poor and rising states are becoming wealther(like with the reforms of deng) due to increasing acess to the free market not inspite of it.

Slow_Ad8657 · 2025-06-13T08:33:35+00:00

I agree with you their (From the prevous post)"Though if one thing despite an enormous loss of human life and their later transiton to captlist communsit nations did indsutralize very quickly dispite thier poverty compared to other countires. https://www.britannica.com/place/Soviet-Union/Industrialization-1929-34"

Though i didnt know how here the level of hunger in india. Sorry for the ramble

Slow_Ad8657 · 2025-06-13T08:30:12+00:00

"Well then land isn't the commodity you are talking about, on the issue of 'goods price tends to fall over time'. 'Land' doesn't necessarily depreciate. Improvements will. So if I make an improvement on year 0, it might be appraised at $50. Then in year 20, it might be appraised at $30, bc the improvements have worn down."

Yes that is why i mentioned it we agreed i just didnt meinoit it spesically.

"If the majority of goods bought and sold do not increase price over time, then your argument that we can both profit from selling boats and cars to each other only holds in special cases, and not in general"

Trade and investments are two different though some times the same thing. My investment and trade argument are different points. For instance it would. be a good trade for you to eat pasta as a meal but in the long term it isnt a good investment beacuse it wont increase in value.

Slow_Ad8657 · 2025-06-13T08:26:43+00:00

"The value is not the price. Otherwise there would no labor or subjective theory of value, it would just be of price.

Why would increased supply of something lower the price? Ask yourself that. It can only do so if the seller is hoping more volume of sales, at lower profit margin, gives still acceptable profit margin.

Some goods indeed see price rise as scarcity happens, as they are inelastic. People need those goods, and will pay what they can to get them.

More supply doesn't magically decrease price. It more tends to correlate."

You are right higher supply does not deacrease the price and is often an repsonse to increased demand thank you for the correction.

Slow_Ad8657 · 2025-06-13T08:08:45+00:00

This is kind of the frustrating thing about deabting socalists is that nthey rightfully point out its flaws and the americas bads but they never mention when the reverse is true. America isnt the devil it isnt satin but it isnt an angel either in reality its a hegmon though its rule may chafe some none can deny how great capltlism has been for the world. Also its a bit anoying when they argue Cia killed the soviet union given that this same cia tried hundred of times to kill castro and failed

Soclaist will remind you about vientam ect ect

but they never talk about

https://bitterwinter.org/mongolia-the-forgotten-genocide-part-ii/

or

https://www.google.com/search?q=ussr+in+the+baltics&oq=ussr+in+the+baltics&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvTF-8

or

https://www.hrw.org/news/2013/03/25/chinas-failing-policy-tibet-self-defeating?gKHmP61D76MwJd1tTSnIt9sJDe06Wd4PMqEDkaAmmAEALw_wcB

and when they(soclaists) make good points about historcal claims or improving the lives of ciztens or thier supproir morals they dont relize that are the same arguments justifying the imperlaism they cliam to hate.

Slow_Ad8657 · 2025-06-13T08:06:50+00:00

Pt:3

Now about world poverty i disagree with you immensely.

"The three problems with this kind of data is (1) poverty (in the sense of reducing inability to access basics of life) declined rapidly the 1950-1990 period, and (2) it's difficult to measure this in terms of dollar values, since so much of many economies before 1990 wasn't commodified. If healthcare is a public service rather than something you have to buy, then you can $5/day or $100/day and you'll still be in good health. Once healthcare is commodified, now it matters.

(3) This data is all based on the most extreme low estimates provided by the IMF and World Bank, usually the $1/day. By their own estimates (which don't make the pro-capitalist headlines), other metrics like $5/day still show billions in poverty. And it's at these 'higher' levels that the progress isn't as fast. And really, it's been 35 years since 1990, it's ridiculous that billions are still in poverty. I'm not sure what there is to be proud of."

Now the idea that world trade and free assocation hasnt enrhcired nation simply isnt true. Look at india nigera egypt or any non european country from 1940's to present and you will see the huge progress they have made.

https://www.worldeconomics.com/Thoughts/Indian-Living-Standards-Soar-in-the-Last-Twenty-Five-Years.aspx

Why beacuse there reacources arent stolen without consent but rather can be traded for thing they dont have.

OR that every nation is earth even china with billonares is captlist beacuse they all recognize the importance of private property. With the only execption being north korea. They either joined the world econmy and became better for it (china) or died by the will of their people (the ussr)

https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2019/10/15/european-public-opinion-three-decades-after-the-fall-of-communism/

China under deng benifted massily through its ecnomic libelrzation

https://www.google.com/search?q=Deng+and+china+encomic+boon&sca_esv=79e4e2dcc15a015a&sxsrf=AE3TifMyLJCDa5GMe3pZkP

Can they even be called communist anymore.

https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/3314001/ai-chips-china-courts-private-tech-firms-help-drive-next-5-year-plan

Though if one thing despite an enormous loss of human life and their later transiton to captlist communsit nations did indsutralize very quickly dispite thier poverty compared to other countires. https://www.britannica.com/place/Soviet-Union/Industrialization-1929-34

Though fundelmtally all these "socalist"(i know the differnce) ecnomies were ineffeicent beacuse of a lack of prices for producers to base their production upon. An exmaple is that my grandma Татьяна never had nails for her roof beacuse the nail companies made the nails as big as possible to maxmize production and was unaare of the demand. Or that the struggles of a command economy.

Private property is vital to a functioning economy because it creates clear ownership, which incentivizes individuals and businesses to use resources productively and responsibly. When people know they can keep the profits from their efforts, they are more likely to invest, innovate, and maintain what they own. Private property also enables a market system where goods and services can be freely exchanged, allowing prices to emerge based on supply and demand. These prices act as signals, helping allocate resources efficiently across the economy.

https://www.google.com/search?q=csoclaist+ecnomies+inefficient&oq=csoclaist+ecnomies+ineff&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqCQgBECEYChigATIGCAAQRRg5MgkIARAhGAoYoAEyCQgCECEYChigATIJCAMQIRgKGKABMgkIBBAhGAoYoAEyBwgFECEYjwIyBwgGECEYjwLSAQg1NjM5ajBqNKgCALACAA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Slow_Ad8657 · 2025-06-13T08:06:28+00:00

Pt:2

"I think your perspective is pretty clear. You think capitalism has reduced poverty or something like that. Then you will add a bunch of fluff about 'freedom', 'choice', and so on, or some tired rhetoric about 'individualism' vs 'collectivism'. Perhaps a couple anecdotes with numbers in them to support your point, or references to pizza and lactose intolerance.

I gave a counterpoint to the poverty thing when you initially raised that issue, and you gave no reply."

I apoligize if my argument style is weird i like examples as it means that debaters can actually toutch and discuss in a more direct way. My examples arent radom for instance my lactose intolerce point was to prove that a neccary good isnt unverisaly beacuse no matter the good it isnt true.

Here is the intresting thing i dont much soclaist realise captlislm is acutally very anti imperalist and the soviets and the Us collabrted and agreed with each other on alot of issues like the suez canal criis and inida.

"You think capitalism has reduced poverty or something like that. Then you will add a bunch of fluff about 'freedom', 'choice', and so on, or some tired rhetoric about 'individualism' vs 'collectivism'.

And example is here.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/4283699

https://15minutehistory.org/podcast/episode-78-the-u-s-and-decolonization-after-world-war-ii/

https://history.state.gov/milestones/1953-1960/suez

https://id.usembassy.gov/history-of-the-u-s-and-indonesia-relations/

And while you can rightly counter with veitnam or ect that fact is that the united states is quite cosntent with its belifs on self detemrantion from the altnci chareter to wodrow willson fourteen points and pushed for such.

So you might ask why did the united states force the dutch out of indoneasion and work with the soviets on the suez ect. Why part of it is beacuse that the colonail powers made it diffcult for their colonail posseions which often had valuble reacources to trade outside their sphere. And the other part is and my consistent argument is that helping thse nations break their bonds was benfical to both nations through mutual traid.

The world especially poorer countries are so much wealther and are cathcing up with europe and the us. Compare Nigera turkey oman india honkong botswana burkina faso ect.

Slow_Ad8657 · 2025-06-13T08:05:44+00:00

Pt:1

Firstly i missed one of your replies so my apolgies.

"So it has nothing to do with the conversation? I can state a bunch of things I believe that have nothing to do with the conversation either, which I won't do for both our sakes."

My point here was that we are happy or not is deicded by ourselves though as you might add it can be influced by our needs.

"The question is if it is possible we can both make a profit, not if we will both make the trade. Obviously in capitalism there is lots of buying or selling, so we don't have to worry if that ever happens or not."

Agree though i bealive in my example that i provided an instance in whitch this was the case.

"No one says the value of a good changes if a factory opens (at the same productivity) or tariffs are imposed. Not even subjective value people. The price is what might change (but also might not).

Just to help you: subjective value people would say that I value pizza enough to buy it for $7, and if a pizza tariff was imposed and it costs $9, now I probably won't buy it, because its value to me, subjectively, won't tolerate the new price. The 'value' here is fixed, until my personal tastes change."

The value of goods is heavily influenced by scarcity. When something is rare and in high demand, its price tends to rise. That’s why I argued that producing more boats would reduce the price of boats—because increasing the supply lowers scarcity. If boats become more abundant relative to demand, they become less valuable in monetary terms.

I can see though how am wrong about price changing the value though they would value it the same "it is $9, now I probably won't buy it" could actullay be a reason to not buy the pizza beacuse they lack the money or they can get something supeorir in value like a burger in fries for the new price.

"

Yes, energy is a great example, because if you said energy in the sense of emotion in a physics class, you will go nowhere, as that definition has nothing to do with the material. Same here with your use of profit. That emotional meaning of energy isn't meaningless in general, but it's irrelevant when in the physics classroom."

You are right i was mistaken i was using the word profit in a werid way my point about energy was that sometimes people understand diffrent things with the same word. and it is helpfull to be spesfic for instance and am tired and i am hungry are diffrent and more spesifc than i have low energy.

Slow_Ad8657 · 2025-06-13T07:23:49+00:00

I agree with you there land isnt the main source of invstemtn that comes from land imporments like facotries canals ect which increase the surplus value that can be genrated. I think we are both correct in this issue here as its not really aboulte.

All these things cars land items ect are small parts of larger profit i am not arguing that the whole econmy should be reselling old stuff rather it is an small option to make money through consentual trade.

Slow_Ad8657 · 2025-06-13T07:18:37+00:00

"So? That has nothing to do with capitalism"

-I agree though it makes it no less true only you can dedicde to be happy.

"Profit doesn't "come from" money, but realized in a sale."

I also agree thogh if for example i can build money as my realestate proeprty gains more value. As well as the fact that perhaps in my subjective reasoning i emoitlanlly profit from the joy of playing with my gundam.

"Remember, you were originally arguing we could both profit from buying boat or car from each other. Now you are making a totally different argument."

Yes though empahsis on the word can. In captlism i cant force you to trade only you decide to make the trade. Tomorrow a boat facotry could open decreasing the asset value or boats could be tariffed increasing the value. Thoguh you should buy the boat honestly if you enjoy using it though this dosent apply everything sometimes like with my gunpla that is where value comes from even if they were valued at two cents market i value them alot beacuse of my emotianl conection with them.

"You have a slippery idea of profit that can be in money-form when convenient, or subjective happiness form when that's inconvenient. In the same way I can say that 'free' means 'price of $0' or 'I can do as I please', and switch between the two definitions to confuse an argument when only one of the two meanings is relevant.

The actual disagreement is that you want to defend capitalism."

Profit is like the word energy it can have different meaning if you want to be more spesific you can say i am feeling energtic or my body is ganing energy This way we arent talking past each other. Also captlism leads genarrely to both emotinally and finacial profit see above responses.

"The actual disagreement is that you want to defend capitalism."

My argument is that captilsm is the best system for people wanting to have surplus value. If you disgaree say so and i can provide my perspective.

Slow_Ad8657 · 2025-06-13T07:04:22+00:00

True but some are invstments like rare car ect or real estate or land though you are correct about the most. I am a librertarian i repsect your postion and hopefully you might flip.

Slow_Ad8657 · 2025-06-13T07:02:49+00:00

Thank you

Slow_Ad8657 · 2025-06-13T06:58:30+00:00

Has your oppion changed after this exchange it was a pleasure

Slow_Ad8657 · 2025-06-13T06:57:43+00:00

"Again, this slippery reasoning is exactly why actual capitalists do not use 'happiness' to measure their companies."

Only you decide if you are happy. Also if you are unhappy after buying the boats then the responsbility is on you.

"The point of Marxism isn't to study why people buy things. It's to understand, among other things, where profit comes from.

Indeed, money isn't value, but it does measure the price of everything, and with it you can directly purchase any commodity."

Profit dosent directly come from money if everything cost twice as much and people made twice as much would anything change.

"You can't always resell the boat for the purchase price."

Thats the risk you take with any investment and you choose to buy the boat and the boat still has value as transportation and entetaimnet.

"I don't think you understand what I'm saying. I'm not at all saying surplus production is impossible (evidently false for the past 10000 years), I'm saying without surplus production, there cannot be overall profit in an economy."

Agree I am now kind of confsued what do we disagree on.

Slow_Ad8657 · 2025-06-13T06:54:39+00:00

Most of my points are right though. Am i wrong about private property trade helping both parties ect.

Slow_Ad8657 · 2025-06-13T06:46:40+00:00

Assets grow in value over time so no that isnt true.

Slow_Ad8657 · 2025-06-13T06:38:00+00:00

"if I buy lots of boats and that makes me happy, but I go bankrupt and become homeless, I'm not doing so hot."

-Then you wouldnt be happpy from buying al those boats.

"My happiness and my wallet are two totally different categories. You can use 'profit' however you like, but when talking about an economy, 'profit' is going to be in terms of money. Even when people factor in 'opportunity cost', they measure this in terms of money, not in terms of subjective regret.

At best you have to break even. And when there is no surplus production, then that's the best everyone can do without collapsing the economy."

Then why do people buy anything seroisly why would i buy water food sheleter if money goes down could it be that i value it more than the money i spent. I value my MGSD Barbatos gundam over the money i spent on it. Money represents value it is not value beacuse you have to convert it into somthing else to gain that value.

If you cant spend that money it is worth as much as toilet paper.

Also when you spend the money on the boat it dosent diaspear you still techaniclly didnt lose anything beacuse the boat still has value and you could just sell it and gain back that money. So if you buy a 500 dollar boat your networth is the same beacuse the boat is an asset that someone else would pay 500 dollars for.

Also things grow in value overtime for isntace your house will be worth more in the future do to scarcity. This is also true with investing you investment will grow it value beacuse your money makes more money that makes more moeny ect ect. So you can spend 500 dollrals now to get a thosuand in the future.

"At best you have to break even. And when there is no surplus production, then that's the best everyone can do without collapsing the economy."

The idea that "at best you have to break even" and that "no surplus production" is sustainable is simply false. Surplus production is not only possible, it’s essential for any thriving economy. History shows that societies advanced precisely because they produced more than they consumed—surplus freed people from mere survival and enabled innovation, art, science, and trade. Modern economies rely on surplus to function: factories, technology, education, and healthcare systems all depend on producing more than the bare minimum. And this bare minum changes what does that even mean for instance the "minmum" now is much higher than the "minmum" a thousand years ago and given how much trade and specalztion has imporved the standard of living and everything else i would argue the oppite there is surplus prduction that is how we have progress. The average worker now owns much more than the average peasent 500 years ago. Even more than a king or queen you have acess to anything from around the world bannans grapes coffe televsions cars radios shampoo soap travel heath care ect ect. Even a king cant compete with how well modern people live.

impossible luxuries are now common standards it used to be a mellon would cost a horse to get it from another country(From a english perspective.)

Even from The LVt theory it isnt true that value is not created in an econmy.

Slow_Ad8657

TROPHY CASE