Debate:Relationship between Socialism and athletic performance

As suggested, I created a debate page about this subject. The debate can be continued here. This is what has been said so far. --Maquissar 19:36, 24 February 2010 (EST)

Hello. First off I'm new to Conservapedia and mainly I joined so I could fix small errors in articles, such as spelling mistakes etc. That being said, I am interested in further explanation of how having socialist policies and legalizing gay marriages is linked to Canada performing below (some) expectations at the Olympics. Also, what is the law liberals should pass to stop something? The Liberal party itself cannot pass any laws as the Conservative party is in power.Hhollis 10:43, 24 February 2010 (EST)

   Liberals hate the free market and loathe the competitive spirit. The sine qua non of socialism is control, control, control. It's no surprise that such a system produces less than excellence. As to promoting the homosexual agenda with gay marriage, and then in schools, it sends many people down a road of failure rather than into traditional marriage that is so successful in producing excellence, including excellent athletes. 

   The reference to liberals passing a law to fix this defect was satirical.--Andy Schlafly 10:55, 24 February 2010 (EST) 

I am not sure I understood the argument, it may be because of my limited knowledge of the English language. To clarify: is your hypothesis only limited to the upbringing of an athlete (i.e. , very few exceptional athletes have had a non-liberal upbringing), do they extend to the politics and morals (i.e. , very few exceptional athletes have liberal values in the political and moral sphere) or, finally, are you talking about countries and not individuals (i.e. , very few exceptional athletes come from countries and cultures which promote liberal or socialistic values)? --Maquissar 11:31, 24 February 2010 (EST)

   Maquissar, it's not that complicated. The percentage of excellent athletes who are in traditional relationships or marriages is very high. The percentage of those misled by the homosexual agenda who then break athletic records is very low. Impose the latter on a country and expect to produce athletes who are not as competitive with other nations that don't impose the misguided value system.--Andy Schlafly 11:51, 24 February 2010 (EST) 

       I would be very interested to see where you are getting these percentages Mr. Schlafly. Do you have a source for that information? As for your original argument that somehow socialism and gay marriage impacts an athletes performance, well that's just silly. It seems to me that you try to link two completely unrelated things to somehow push your beliefs about gay marriage and socialism. Yes, Canada has many social programs. Yes, many Canadian support gay marriage. How that affects Canadian athletes is beyond me. It sounds like you're grasping at straws.--Cjohnston 12:13, 24 February 2010 (EST) 

Oh, ok, thanks for the answer. I do not have any comments on the subject of exceptional homosexual athletes, as I haven't done any extensive research on the subject. But about liberal values, socialism, and sports, I don't agree. It seems to me that there are and there have been many exceptional athletes who did not have conservative values in either morals or politics, and also many exceptional athletes who came from socialistic or even communist countries. Some examples:

Non-conservative moral values:

Exceptional athletes who were libertines, or who divorced more than twice: ---Diego Armando MARADONA (soccer) ---Tiger WOODS (golf) ---Cassius CLAY (boxing) ---George BEST (soccer) ---Joe LOUIS (boxing)

Exceptional athletes who committed very serious crimes like rape, kidnapping, robbery, or murder: ---O.J. SIMPSON (football) ---Mike TYSON (boxing)

Exceptional athletes who were drug users: ---Diego Armando MARADONA (soccer) ---Marco PANTANI (cyclism) ---Ray Sugar LEONARD (boxing) ---Joe LOUIS (boxing)

Exceptional athletes who are agnostic or atheist: ---Lance ARMSTRONG (cycling)

Socialist or communist countries successful in sports:

---The SOVIET UNION won the 1956, 1960, 1972, 1976, 1980 and 1988 Summer Olympics, and came second almost every other time it partecipated. It produced several outstanding athletes in all different disciplines.

---CUBA always fared very successfully at Olympic games in spite of its small size.

---EAST GERMANY, when it existed, fared very successfully at Olympic games.

---ROMANIA produced many fine athletes in the time it was still part of the Eastern bloc, and came second in the 1984 Olympics, the only Communist country that took part to those games.

---BRAZIL is a socialist country, yet it still produces many of the world's greatest soccer players.

This is just a list which didn't take too much time to research, and I am sure that other names could be added to it. Also, I am not very familiar with American sports, so my list takes into account only American athletes whose fame is large enough to have spread to Italy. My point is, there doesn't seem to me that there is a clear correlation between liberal moral values, liberal political values, socialism, and failure in sports. --Maquissar 13:10, 24 February 2010 (EST)

           Okay, now this argument that socialism breeds a lack of competitive spirit and sub-par athletes is really just silly. Let's look at the data ... Since we started off talking about the Winter Olympics, the all-time medals leader is Norway with 290 medals (103 of which were gold) and Norway has a pretty vibrant national welfare system. Second place is the United States with 237 medals (84 Gold) and third all-time is the Soviet Union with 217 medals (87 of which were gold). So, the Soviet Union won just twenty fewer medals and three more gold medals despite the fact that they competed in only 9 Winter Olympic Games and the United States competed in 21 Winter Games.[1]. 

           If one looks at the Summer Games, in the eight games in which the United States and Soviet Union both competed, the United States trailed in the medal count six times to the Soviets.[2] The U.S. also trailed the post-Soviet "Unified Team" in 1992 in both the Summer and Winter Games.[3][4] Furthermore, if one weights the all-time medal counts for the Soviet Union and the United States[5] to account for the fact that the Soviets only participated in 9 Summer Games to the United States's 25, the Soviets have a clear margin of victory in both the total medal count and the gold medal count. Finally, in 2008, the U.S. trailed in the gold medals category (though, admittedly, not in the total medal count) to China -- again a country with some socialist tendencies.[6] 

           So maybe it's time to put this one to bed. Just because you're a "socialist" doesn't mean you can't run fast or jump high.--Rubashov 13:30, 24 February 2010 (EST) 

               Folks, you take liberal denial to, shall we say, Olympic heights. Your misuse of statistics fails to match the time period of effect to the time period of the cause. First open your mind and admit that the cause-and-effect is quite possible. I doubt you can get to the starting gate.--Andy Schlafly 13:41, 24 February 2010 (EST) 

                   How have they misused statistics? And also, if we look at medals per capita here, we see that the leading nations are all fairly socialist countries. CharlieT 13:45, 24 February 2010 (EST) 

                   I admit that cause-and-effect is quite possible. Actually, I BELIEVE in cause-and-effect. However, looking at the effects (e.g., the results in sport competitions of socialists and liberals) I don't find your hypothesis ("Liberalism and socialism fail - or are vastly inferior than conservativism - to create exceptional athletes") to be true. I am willing to admit that the mistake could be in my use of logic. Could you please explain how these statistics were misused? And what do you mean by "match the time period of effect to the time period of the cause"? --Maquissar 13:48, 24 February 2010 (EST) 

               Andy, you're right; I'm having trouble getting to the starting gate since, on its face, your assertion that a country that embraces socialism breeds poor-quality athletes seems rather obtuse. I disagree that I misused the statistics, but if you would like to point out specifically how I did so or offer a better analysis of them, I welcome your interpretation of the data. That's why I provided links to all of the raw data I used -- so have at it. Furthermore, your response was vague and I'm not sure what you mean by matching the time period of the cause with its effects in this particular instance. But, as I wait for you to clear up what you mean, I'll take a crack at what I THINK you mean. 

               Though there have certainly been outliers, I think we can all agree that most Olympians are rather young, especially in sports requiring more vigorous activity. These sports, moreover, would seem to be more prone to the dilution of competitive spirit you have described. Since the first Olympics in which the Soviet Union competed was in 1952 and the Bolshevik Revolution was in 1917, any athlete under the age of 35 would have been born and raised under Soviet Socialism. They would have been indoctrinated with Soviet ideals in their schools (which you claim above is a key cause of the less-competitive effect). And the Soviet Union had, relatively early on, one of the most liberal divorce systems in the world. So one could infer that Soviet athletes were raised in a system that was less tied to notions of "traditional marriage" (another of your key causes above). Can we all agree that the Soviet Union was the MOST socialist society that we have yet seen? If so, and given the above points, one would expect to see the Soviet Union do markedly poorer in Olympic competition than the freer-market, traditional-marriage United States. Yet, the Soviets performed better in six of the eight Olympics in which both countries competed and performed better on the whole over the course of the 36 years in which the Soviet Union took part in the Olympic Games. Similarly, as time went on, one would expect the Soviet Union to decline in relation to the United States in competition as a greater percentage of the athletes were born under socialism. And, yet, Soviet performance was remarkably consistent over time. And, considering that the United States outperformed the Soviets in their first meeting in 1952 but then trailed the Soviets in 1956, the Soviet athletes actually IMPROVED as their ranks were filled with socialist-born athletes. 

               So, the question remains, what exactly is the "time frame" for this particular cause and effect? Given the number of articles on the news page that compare Obama to Stalin and the current liberal government to Soviet Socialism after only one year in power, one could argue that the effects of socialist indoctrination occur quickly indeed. Or, take the Canadian case: The Canadian government legalized homosexual marriage in 2005. And, I'll be generous and spot you an additional 20 years in which the homosexual citizens and interest groups gained enough ground to sway the government. That gives us a total of 25 years, which is still less than the 40 years between the Bolshevik Revolution and the first time the Soviet Union outperformed the United States in the Summer Games. Given that the Soviet Union is surely more socialist and has more indoctrination power at its disposal than Canada, the Soviet athletes in 1956 should have been much more steeped in the socialist agenda than Canada in 2010. 

               Well Mr. Schlafly, I have attempted to answer your criticism (as far as I understand it) and I have compared the United States's Olympic performance to that of the Soviet Union, both when they competed against each other and over the entire course of their participation in the Olympic Games. I don't know what other time frame of cause and effect is available. Again, I encourage you to show statistical evidence to refute my own and have provided the data necessary to do so. But, until you provide some evidence to the contrary, I remain skeptical that the Canadian loss to the U.S. in hockey can be explained by socialism or homosexuality. You seem to be acting just as the liberal government in Australia did in enacting gun control. To quote yourself, above: "The liberal newspapers jumped on a statistically insignificant tragedy to demand sweeping gun control for law-abiding citizens." Are you sure that you are not jumping on a statistically insignificant event (Canada's loss to the United States in ONE hockey game or their general failure to live up to medal predictions in ONE Olympic Games) to demonize a particular country's governmental system or a particular ideology. Sounds a bit like Liberal Deceit to me. Yours, with an open mind, --Rubashov 15:00, 24 February 2010 (EST) 

                   Rubashov, if you won't open your mind and accept that a cause-and-effect is possible, then it is obviously a fool's errand for anyone to debate the issue with you. Indeed, all of your analysis is suspect based on your refusal from the get-go to allow the possibility of what you then claim to analyze. The Soviet Union, by the way, was a COMMUNIST country that forcibly handpicked and developed athletes specifically to excel in the Olympics. Any sports fan knows that and I find it disingenuous for you to omit it. Your analogy has no application to a free society like Canada's. 

                   I will respond to others willing to engage in open-minded discussion of this.--Andy Schlafly 15:28, 24 February 2010 (EST) 
                   While all were born in Canada, only two are living in Canada right now, everybody else plays for a US team. The coach is the coach of the Red Wings. While an effect might be claimed, I think if might be better to wait and see for the medal round. Rcgallup 16:15, 24 February 2010 (EST) 

               Wow, a dismissal and a deflection all in one. You’re right, Andy, that I remain unconvinced that Socialism and non-traditional marriage in a society leads to sub-par athletes. The reason? I have brought to bear thirty-six years of evidence of Soviet excellence in the Olympic Games (the Olympics were your field of choice, by the way) and you have a single hockey game that Canadians lost to the United States. I have no problem with cause and effect; I’m a historian so cause and effect is kind of what I do. I do have a problem with unsubstantiated cause and effect; it is intellectually lazy. It is not my job to prove YOUR hypothesis. Since you are a lawyer by training, let’s put it this way: the burden of proof is yours. I have brought a wealth of evidence to court and you have brought nothing, who do you think the judge or the jury will believe? So, until you show me how my analysis of the data was flawed and offer counter evidence to my interpretation, I remain unconvinced. 

               It is possible that you could prove your point better than I could prove mine, but I think it is unlikely. Arguing that the Canadians losing to the United States in a hockey game is proof that somehow the zeitgeist of Canada is lacking to the United States is a bit like saying that when the Suns beat the Thunder in NBA basketball last night it was proof that Phoenix is a better city than Oklahoma City. The only problem is: What if Oklahoma City wins the next time? 

               But, since you have deflected our discussion, let’s get back to the points you just made and then maybe later you’ll answer my original analysis: 

                   1) “The Soviet Union, by the way, was a COMMUNIST country.... Your analogy has no application to a free society like Canada's.” 

                           So, the point here is that the Soviet Union was not socialist BECAUSE it was communist? Or too socialist to be socialist? I really don’t think you believe that. I don’t think you believe that because your encyclopedia tells me that the Soviet Union was socialist and that communism is a form of socialism: “[The Soviet Union] was the most powerful established socialist states in history;” “In Communism (the primary variant of socialism) the central goal is to establish a "worker's paradise"-an ideal state with perfect equality;” “First there is Marxian Socialism or Leninism as revised by Lenin and practiced in the Soviet Union by Stalin (and his successors);” and “Economically, communism advocates a socialist economy in which the government owns the means of production.” 

                           Communism is a form of socialism, though certainly not all socialists are communists. If you don’t understand that communism is a form of socialism (and I think you do), you need to go back to Princeton and ask for your money back. Nonetheless, your argument is that socialism causes a lack of competitive spirit in athletes and causes them to fail in international competition. Thus if a socialist country (even an EXTREME socialist one) bests or does as well as a free market country (especially over an extended period of time) in international competition, then your argument has been proven false. Just as if you said “all pies are yummy” and then discovered that you did not like rhubarb pie, you would have to revise or discard your original assertion. 

                           p.s. If the Soviet Union really wasn’t socialist, then we really should should stop comparing Obama’s “socialism” to Stalinism. 

                   2) “... [The Soviet Union] forcibly handpicked and developed athletes specifically to excel in the Olympics.” 

                           Are you saying that the success of Soviet athletes in international competition is attributable to being chosen and trained by the state? That government intervention in the lives of its citizens, deciding who will be trained to excel to the detriment of other potential athletes produced better athletic results that a free market system based on the competition of all athletes to decide who was the most able competitor? You’re saying that socialism works better than a free market system? If you really believe that (and I don’t think you do), I await your vocal support of the public healthcare option. 

                   3) “...a free society like Canada's.” 

                           Wait, you just said above that Canada was not a free society but a socialist one. As you put it: “The sine qua non of socialism is control, control, control. It's no surprise that such a system produces less than excellence.” The crux of your argument was that the U.S. outperformed Canada because Canada is socialist and because it “loathe[s] the free market.” So is Canada socialist or isn’t it? 

               Well, Andy, this has been an interesting and dare I say fun discussion. You always ask for logic and I think I have given it to you in spades. I await with excitement your response and hope, at some point, that you will provide evidence of your original assertion rather than deflection. Yours, still with an open mind,--Rubashov 17:38, 24 February 2010 (EST) 

                   Rubashov, as I said, it's a fool's errand to argue with someone who lacks an open mind. When you admit that it is possible that socialism and the homosexual agenda have a negative affect on a free nation's success at the Olympics, then let's discuss. Otherwise, I'm not going to waste time replying to a closed mind. 

                   Maquissar, you seem willing to discuss the hypothesis with an open mind, and the flaw in your analysis is that you are comparing different countries having different climates and interests in sports to each other. That's not nearly as valuable as comparing the same country to itself under different policies of that same country. Indeed, some have already blamed Canada's policy of "own the podium" for its failures. No one seems closed-minded about that, although certainly some may disagree. Why the closed-mindedness by others about negative effects from socialism and the homosexual agenda?--Andy Schlafly 17:54, 24 February 2010 (EST) 

   * This is 2010! I can hardly believe my eyes that there are actually people arguing in favor of Communism, or excusing it. Obviously the users doing so are way too young to have actually lived under their regimes, and very ignorant about "Reeducation Camps" where family members were in many cases held to force athletes to comply, or punish those who the authorities felt didn't try hard enough. The Chinese still are doing it. Check Amnesty International, hardly a conservative organization. Trolls be gone! --ṬK/Admin/Talk 18:15, 24 February 2010 (EST) 

   With all respect, Rubashov was not arguing in favour of Communism, but pointing out the lack of a link between socialism/gay marriage and poor athletic performance which Mr. Schlafly failed to properly cite. I believe the bending of information to suit your own ideals is something of a liberal trait. You'll likely ban me now too, but the truth is more important. 

                       Andy, first of all, I begin by saying that I am not discussing the correlation between endorsement of gay marriage and sports, because I don't have any data to work on, and anything I say would be pure speculation. For the sake of this argument, I will restrain my reasoning to socialism. You say that a country should be compared to itself under different policies, and not to other countries; I agree, as tradition, geography, and racial characteristics also play a heavy role in sports performance. No matter their political or social values, for instance, I doubt Tahitians will ever win a medal in winter sports. Also, I understand that this is not mathematics, and that a certain degree of randomness may induce fluctuations. England, regardless of political or social changes, may gloriously win the soccer World cup one year, and lose it ignominiously four years later. 

Yet, if socialism DOES play a significant negative role in athletic performance, it should be expected that countries will, ON AVERAGE, normally fare worse during socialism. Of course, changes will not be immediately apparent; a country which has a socialist revolution in 2011 will not have a decreased athletic performance overnight, and a socialist country which changes to another type of government will not suddenly become better. If my reasoning is wrong, please do correct me.

Now, let's analyze the available data, and let's see if this is indeed the case. Please know that I do not already know the answer: I am looking at data as we speak, and posting it "raw". To each of us the duty of drawing his own conclusions.

Please also keep in mind that the 1980 Olympic games were in Moscow, and the 1984 Olympic games were in Los Angeles. The US and 64 other countries boycotted the Moscow games, and the Eastern bloc (except Romania) boycotted the Los Angeles games.

I'll not consider the 1948 Olympic Games, as some countries did not partecipate, and most countries were still recovering from the damages of a World War. If this exclusion is wrong, please point it out.

ROMANIA.

 Communist period (1945-1989)
     1952: 4 medals (1 gold)
     1956: 13 medals (4 gold)
     1960: 10 medals (3 gold)
     1964: 12 medals (2 gold)
     1968: 15 medals (4 gold)
     1972: 16 medals (3 gold)
     1976: 27 medals (4 gold)
     1980: 25 medals (6 gold)
     1984: 53 medals (20 gold)
     1988: 24 medals (7 gold)
 Free-market period (1989-present)
     1992: 18 medals (4 gold)
     1996: 20 medals (4 gold)
     2000: 26 medals (11 gold)
     2004: 19 medals (8 gold) 
     2008: 8 medals (4 gold)

POLAND.

 Communist period (1945-1989)
     1952: 4 medals (1 gold)
     1956: 9 medals (1 gold)
     1960: 21 medals (4 gold)
     1964: 23 medals (7 gold)
     1968: 18 medals (5 gold)
     1972: 21 medals (7 gold)
     1976: 26 medals (7 gold)
     1980: 32 medals (3 gold)
     1984: absent
     1988: 16 medals (2 gold)
 Free-market period (1989-present)    
     1992: 19 medals (3 gold)
     1996: 17 medals (7 gold)
     2000: 14 medals (6 gold)
     2004: 10 medals (3 gold)
     2008: 10 medals (3 gold)

I will not do this for every nation, as this would take too much space. Those of you who are interested in the debate, find some records and analyze the available data, and then draw your own conclusions. For the sake of statistics, however, let's take a democracy and not a communist dictatorship.

UNITED KINGDOM

 Conservatives in Power (1951-1964)  
    1952: 11 medals (1 gold)
    1956: 24 medals (6 gold)
    1960: 12 medals (2 gold)
 Labour in Power (1964-1970)
    1964: 18 medals (4 gold)
    1968: 13 medals (5 gold)
 Conservatives in Power (1970-1974)
    1972: 18 medals (4 gold)
 Labour in Power (1974-1979)
    1976: 13 medals (3 gold)
 Conservatives in Power (1979-1997)
    1980: 21 medals (5 gold)
    1984: 37 medals (5 gold)
    1988: 24 medals (5 gold)
    1992: 20 medals (5 gold)
    1996: 15 medals (1 gold)
 Labour in Power (1997-present)
    2000: 28 medals (11 gold)
    2004: 30 medals (9 gold)
    2008: 47 medals (19 gold)

Take a look as many countries as you like, keep into consideration the fact that changes shouldn't be evident immediately, but the preeminence of a political and social ideology should take some time to show its fruits, and decide for yourselves: does socialism have an effect on athletic performance? --Maquissar 19:03, 24 February 2010 (EST)

TK raises a critical point which seems to have gone overlooked. Totalitarian regimes can and will employ the most brutal of tactics to "motivate" their subjects; this can, to some extent, mask the weakness of their system. This principle holds true whether discussing economics or athletics; fear is a powerful motivator. However, ultimately, it is a self-destructive one, and "successful" systems built on fear are doomed to topple. --Benp 19:43, 24 February 2010 (EST)

That may be a valid point: I heard that under Fascism in Italy one of the players who scored a decisive goal in the final of a World Cup admitted that he was afraid of missing, cause he would have been beaten and forced to drink castor oil. I have no source for this though, it's hearsay.

Anyway, we are talking about socialism here. The debate originated from a discussion about Canada, not the Soviet Union. Socialism does not equal communism, nor does it equal totalitarianism: European states, for instance, often adopt socialist policies, and left-wing governments do go to power, but totalitarianism is not a factor in the equation. It would be interesting to see which results we would get if we excluded Soviet bloc countries from this debate, and just focused on different "left-wing" and "right-wing" periods of the history of democratic countries. I am not convinced that we would find significant statistical differences, and "brutal tactics" would be completely out of the equation. --Maquissar 19:52, 24 February 2010 (EST)