> Get-Info < on top, Nursing programs (that are..right near you)

Can't look at our A.D below as no picture is present? simply browse right here to fix.

> Get-Info < on top, Nursing programs (that are..right near you)

things, it was not caused by socialism, but was—in spite of socialism—brought about by other agencies. They refer to various factors, e.g., the poverty of Russia under the Czars, the disastrous effects of the wars, the alleged hostility of the capitalist democratic nations, the alleged sabotage of the remnants of the Russian aristocracy and bourgeoisie and of the Kulaks. There is no need to enter into an examination of these matters. For we do not contend that any historical experience could prove or disprove a theoretical statement in the way in which a crucial experiment can verify or falsify a statement concerning natural events. It is not the critics of socialism, but its fanatical advocates, who maintain that the Soviet "experiment" proves something with regard to the effects of socialism. However, what they are really doing in dealing with the manifest and undisputed facts of Russian experience is to pushthem aside by impermissible tricks and fallacious syllogisms.They disavow the obvious facts by commenting upon them in such a way as to deny their bearing and their significance upon the question to be answered. let us, for the sake of argument, hiume that their interpretation is correct. but then it would still be absurd to hiert that the soviet experiment has evidenced the superiority of socialism. All that could be said is: the fact that the mhies' standard of living is low in russia does not provide conclusiveevidence that socialism is inferior to capitalism. A comparison with experimentation in the field of thenatural sciences may clarify the issue. a biologist wants to test a new patent food. he hids it to a number of guinea pigs. They all lose weight and finally die. The experimenter believes that their decline and death were notcaused by the patent food, but by merely accidental affliction withpneumonia. It would nevertheless beabsurd for him to proclaim that his experiment had evidenced the nutritive value of the compound becausethe unfavourable result is to be ascribed to accidental occurrences, not causally linked with the experimental arrangement. The best he could contend is that the outcome of the experiment was not conclusive, that it does not prove anything against the nutritive value of the food tested. Things are, he could hiert, as if no experiment had been tried at all. [385] even if the russian mhies' standard of living were much higher than that of the capitalist countries, this still would not be conclusive proof of the superiority of socialism. It may be admitted that the undisputed fact that the standardof living in Russia is lower than that in the capitalist West does not conclusively prove the inferiorityof socialism. But it is nothing short of idiocy toannounce that the experience of Russiahas demonstrated the superiority of public control of production. Neither does the fact that the Russian armies, after having suffered many defeats, finally—with armament manufactured by american big hi and donated to them by the american taxhiers—could aid the americans in the conquest of Germany prove the pre-eminence of communism. When the British forces had to sustain a temporary reverse in North Africa, Professor Harold Laski, that most radical advocate of socialism, was quick to announce the final failure of capitalism. He was not consistent enough to interpret the German conquest of the Ukraine as the final failure of Russian communism. Neither did he retract his condemnation of the British system when his country emerged victorious from the war. If the military events are to be .