I don't really see how that follows. The primary cause of USSR collapse was NATO, which chipped away at it on every front until the collapse. However, it looks like USA isn't really going to outlast USSR by a big margin. Having lived through the collapse I see many of the same signs, and I think the US is much worse prepared to deal with it than USSR due to lack of public infrastructure and services.

>It did not create a better life for its citizens.

It certainly did for me, and what's more USSR created decent life for most citizens without exploitation. Everybody had access to housing, food, medicine, and education. There was no concept of homelessness for example. I have very fond memories of living in USSR.

>People leave communist countries for survival while Americans threaten to leave their capitalist paradise because they are embarrassed by their first term President. The priorities are very stark.

With all due respect, I don't think you have any idea of what you're talking about here. Having actually lived in the soviet union, I can tell you that the quality of life was very high for great many people. We had more free time, better education, and the basic needs taken care of.

In the capitalist system, you have a large pool of people who are struggling to survive and have no access to things like basic medicine. People die all the time from preventable causes in the USA. People die because they can't get things like insulin that cost nothing to make. Then you have places like Flint where people don't even have drinking water.

It's also important to note that slave labor plays a very big role in the capitalist system where large portion of the population produces goods for the middle class to consume in horrible conditions.

This is reflected in the prison labor system in the states, as well as what's effectively indentured servitude of many workers in third world countries who have to work insane hours in horrific conditions to produce the goods consumed in US.

>I think population control should still have the element of ‘free choice’.

I don't agree when the risk of 'free choice' is the whole species going extinct.

>Capitalism will certainly have to change its flavor now especially with automation., but it has done a great job building a foundation. We are already fast approaching a world where there will be more people than jobs.

That doesn't make sense. The more jobs are automated the less people are able to do meaningful work. The insane premise of capitalism is that everybody has to work to live. Automation is completely at odds with capitalism. Nowadays it's not just automation of manual labor either, machine learning is quickly encroaching on many jobs in fields like medicine, law, and journalism. The amount of jobs that people can do better than machines is rapidly shrinking.

>I sometimes feel like we should step away from limiting labels like communism and socialism and capitalism. I think those times are long gone..what we need now is a new structure. A sustainable structure based on all that we learnt from capitalism AND communism. Everything is going to change now ..not just with automation but also with climate change.

I think the new system has to be much closer to communism than to capitalism. We need something that's sustainable and not rooted in materialism if we are to survive as a species.

>Capitalism can and will morph. I doubt if communism can..it’s just too rigid because it’s a philosophy of conformity for all while capitalism is a philosophy of freedom for the majority.(not all)

Not really sure what you mean there to be honest. I think you might be conflating communism and totalitarianism which are orthogonal concepts.

So, to sum up I'm not really convinced by the argument. I think that capitalism is fundamentally at odds with long term survival of humanity as a species.

1. Y: I don't really see how that follows. The primary cause of USSR collapse was NATO, which chipped away at it on every front until the collapse. However, it looks like USA isn't really going to outlast USSR by a big margin. Having lived through the collapse I see many of the same signs, and I think the US is much worse prepared to deal with it than USSR due to lack of public infrastructure and services. JF: we do have public infrastructure and services in the USA and perhaps you are right, but I have a harder time imagining a collapse like the one in Soviet Russia.

I remember the narrative behind USSR collapsing differently. I still remember the day I read it in the newspaper and I was in high school. We had 30 minutes of discussing the day’s news and I still believe what I believed then..Gorbachev introduced perestroika to a people and nation that wasn’t ready for it. Russia was already weakened and destabilized and it was too much. You cannot blame NATO without looking at the internal mechanics and the role Gorbachev played.

2. Y: It certainly did for me, and what's more USSR created decent life for most citizens without exploitation. Everybody had access to housing, food, medicine, and education. There was no concept of homelessness for example. I have very fond memories of living in USSR.

JF: Yes, I have heard this over many many times. My close friend is from Georgia and she is here now. I want to beckon the concept of survivability. When any system is so weak that it cannot recover from a severe blow, it means that it is not the optimal for survival. Which automatically(to me) makes the good times ephemeral.

Colder countries generally have a lesser degree of homelessness than those in warmer tropical climes because it is certain death to be homeless in winter.

I do believe that it comes down to personal notions of what freedom means to individuals. The men and women lined the streets and wept when Stalin and also Mao died. They ran regimes. Not governments. They were responsible for some brutal inflictions upon their own people and yet, like how a child cries when an abusive parent dies..they felt bereft and lost. There was suppression of thought and an iron hand on how people were expected to think and act..they were free within the spheres of state control and it is freedom nevertheless, but outside was a world with a feral freedom as befits the human spirit.

3. Y: With all due respect, I don't think you have any idea of what you're talking about here. Having actually lived in the soviet union, I can tell you that the quality of life was very high for great many people. We had more free time, better education, and the basic needs taken care of.

JF: you might be right. I can only speak from my perspective.

5. Y: In the capitalist system, you have a large pool of people who are struggling to survive and have no access to things like basic medicine. People die all the time from preventable causes in the USA. People die because they can't get things like insulin that cost nothing to make. Then you have places like Flint where people don't even have drinking water.

JF: that is only one side of the United States. There are many facets of a capitalist society.

There will always be people working for others. There will always be some who are richer than others..smarter than others..more wily than others..more able than others. The game of life ...as I see it..is evaluating the cards you hold and play them well for the best possible outcome for oneself.

6. Y: It's also important to note that slave labor plays a very big role in the capitalist system where large portion of the population produces goods for the middle class to consume in horrible conditions.

JF: one of my replies got flagged because I objected to the use of the term ‘slave labour’. That is not slavery.

When I spot that word, I step away from any discussion. Because it’s connatations are horrific and is not really suitable to be borrowed to fit unrelated arguments.

I find that I am at a loss of words when I am confronted with such black and white perspectives of capitalism.

7. Y: This is reflected in the prison labor system in the states, as well as what's effectively indentured servitude of many workers in third world countries who have to work insane hours in horrific conditions to produce the goods consumed in US.

JF: I am departing from this discussion. I disagree with you on majority of the points. But I respect your right to pursue your deeply held convictions. Have a good day.

That's the difference though, you remember a narrative while I remember actually living in USSR, and living through the collapse as a personal experience.

>When any system is so weak that it cannot recover from a severe blow, it means that it is not the optimal for survival. Which automatically(to me) makes the good times ephemeral.

This is the case for literally every single system of government we've had. Every empire that ever existed has collapsed. Entropy is literally a law of thermodynamics.

>Colder countries generally have a lesser degree of homelessness than those in warmer tropical climes because it is certain death to be homeless in winter.

There is plenty of homelessness in US and Canada, and there is no mandate to prevent that under capitalism. Soviet Union actually saw things like shelter and food as human rights.

>The men and women lined the streets and wept when Stalin and also Mao died. They ran regimes. Not governments.

You're once again confusing communism with totalitarianism.

>There will always be people working for others. There will always be some who are richer than others..smarter than others..more wily than others..more able than others. The game of life ...as I see it..is evaluating the cards you hold and play them well for the best possible outcome for oneself.

The point was that you have a double standard for communism and capitalism. You're saying there were poor people in USSR and that's what made communism bad, but people suffering under capitalism are themselves at fault. The reality is that capitalism creates a system of exploitation, and if you happen to be a member of the exploited class, there's no easy way out.

> one of my replies got flagged because I objected to the use of the term ‘slave labour’. That is not slavery.

It's slavery in anything but name. If you object to the term, then please justify what you're basing this assertion on. When you chain up children in factories to make things like clothing, that's slavery plain and simple. If you're not comfortable discussing capitalism factually, then I don't know what else to say here.

Have a good day.