Thread: collapse of the ussr

Originally Posted by VendingMachine

[So the punk got away? Bugger!

Yes VM, when he mentioned you by name I fell for his story.

PS If you're still looking for him, he lives up in Dogboy's neck of the woods.

I think that the whole point of capitalism is that wealth equals power. In a capitalistic society, that wealth is owned by the people. And yes some people have more wealth than others, but social mobility is possible, and those who do not have, are so mostly by their own choices. Learning how to efficiently trade your time and labor for wealth is how you move within the system. This requires a work ethic, education, skills, and capability, and it is an intrinsic fulfillment of maslow's heirarchy. I stand as a case in point example of capitalism working. I come from a single parent, very very low income family, and now make a middle to upper middle class income, and partially own a good bit of my own property, and still have reasonable improvements in my situation to look up toward. Now i'm not saying that people living and working in communist or socialist systems don't have these traits as well, but I don't think that the use and growth of those traits is directly tied to their wealth/power/satisfaction.

Therefore, in a capitalistic society, the government is inherrently accountable to the people, because the government owns very little, and the people own very much. Vice verse in a socialist/communist system, where the government is inherrently not accountable to the people. This is why socialistic democracies can't work. Someone said that democracy only work until the people realize they can vote themselves concessions out of the public coffers, then it bankrupts. America is getting there...

And now for a bit of my own ignorance... why *did* the USSR fall, really? I was a young teenager during most of the newsmaking transition, and while I was aware that it was going on, I was not at all tuned in to the intricacies of why. I guess i've come under the impression that the socialist government bankrupted itsself, having to pay for services far more than it had income available to cover the charges. Unrest with the people caused disrespect of authority which eventually lead to breaking up of the union... I am FULLY ready to admit that might be completely out to lunch, because I really don't know, so someone please educate me

Originally Posted by дано

And now for a bit of my own ignorance... why *did* the USSR fall, really? I was a young teenager during most of the newsmaking transition, and while I was aware that it was going on, I was not at all tuned in to the intricacies of why. I guess i've come under the impression that the socialist government bankrupted itsself, having to pay for services far more than it had income available to cover the charges. Unrest with the people caused disrespect of authority which eventually lead to breaking up of the union... I am FULLY ready to admit that might be completely out to lunch, because I really don't know, so someone please educate me

It was a tactical move on our part. We simply regrouped our forces and are currentlty in the process of taking you over. Remember how Koutouzoff burnt Moscow down to drive the French out of Russia? You never know with us.

@VendingMachine: Don't cry as a rooster; your year hasn't come.

Originally Posted by дано

I think that the whole point of capitalism is that wealth equals power. In a capitalistic society, that wealth is owned by the people.

Yes and No. Capitalism is only a concept; look how many implementations of the concept are in the world. I'd agree if you said "the wealth of so called middle class brings stability in the country", but now many international corporations have so much money they can promote their politics. Often the politics doesn't accord to people wishes.

Originally Posted by дано

Now i'm not saying that people living and working in communist or socialist systems don't have these traits as well

There were no such things as a communism and a socialism; and the system which was created in USSR mostly brings people to lose the traits. USSR people were accustomed to "free" stuff and that became a USSR politics. (The evidence of that you can find right into this subject).

Originally Posted by дано

Therefore, in a capitalistic society, the government is inherrently accountable to the people, because the government owns very little, and the people own very much.

And Forbes annually print full list of the people.
The things you are talking about are not specific for socialism and capitalism.

Originally Posted by дано

Vice verse in a socialist/communist system, where the government is inherrently not accountable to the people.

and vice verse in a capitalism system, where the government is not accountable to the people.

Originally Posted by дано

This is why socialistic democracies can't work.

There are another reasons. I can't explain them to you now because of you don't understand the basic rules of socialism.

Originally Posted by дано

Someone said that democracy only work until the people realize they can vote themselves concessions out of the public coffers, then it bankrupts.

I agree the personal responsibility is very important thing for democracy.

Originally Posted by дано

I guess i've come under the impression that the socialist government bankrupted itsself, having to pay for services far more than it had income available to cover the charges.

It was only one of the tons of reasons. Republics was seeing the Moscow government has no plan, has no power, has no will.

Originally Posted by BETEP

@VendingMachine: Don't cry as a rooster; your year hasn't come.

Accept it, BETEP - the sovkis were so much better placed for just about anything that you're placed for now. Swallow this pill, BETEP, learn to live with this fact.

Well, I voted "Bad". As a lower-class American, I have watched since I was very young, everyone around me working 2-3 jobs just to keep the basics working and afford a little entertainment.

Too many people talk about the poor people, struggling in the USSR and yet they don't even mention people who, even today, struggle in America.

About being able to buy more variety of things(like washing machines) in a capitalist society...Who cares? What is the point, exactly, of having more than one brand of basic appliances? So long as the state ensures a decent price(if any) and a quality product(and yes, continues development if possible) then there is really no point in having variety.

Also, for Aeroscience(a large portion of advancement/rivalry), we have the USSR to thank. For an example... the R-7 is one of the best rockets ever designed...to the point of still being used today to bring people to the ISS.(I wish they would have continued development on the G-1 but Korolev died and they shifted focus...which was stupid...oh well..)

Originally Posted by BlackMage

Of course, I have never been in a communist country, but I think that capitalism is better, because you have something to work for. In the Soviet Union, no matter how hard you worked or how well you did you could be sure you would always get the same things as the guy in the apartment next to you who never did anything.

True. Sad, but true.

I don't know how the situation really was in the former Soviet Union, but I see tendencies of this in Norway as well. I'd say Norway is one of the most red countries in the western world, and our social welfare system is pretty good. The idea of it is very good, everyone who wants to study at universities or colleges get scholarships, if you lose your job, you get unemployment insurance, the same if you get ill etc.

The problem is that there are soooo many people who exploit this. I don't want to sound like an arrogant dick, but 50% of Norwegian students have NOTHING to do in higher education. These students just go to school to have fun and chill out while taking a couple of easy subjects (which they don't even do well in). They know the state will cover most of their expenses anyway.

Also, if you really want to, you don't have to do anything after elementary school. For three years, you can sit on your ass and live on welfare. There are actually instances of people in Norway who quit their jobs because the social welfare gives them just as good economy as the former option. No, you won't be rich, but unless you have children to take care of alone, you can live just fine on welfare.

However, in America, you can be sure that by working very hard you will be rewarded with a better life for you and your family.

This one not that true. Just like you claim that the commies have been indoctrinated throughout their years of growth with communist propaganda, the Americans have been disillusioned by the inbred belief in American society that hard work for sure will make you climb the social ladder. I can't believe people still believe this when there are countless examples of people who've failed. Yes, hard work in elementary school will take you further than no work, but what does hard work help you if you don't have rich parents to pay for your education?

The world isn't as black and white (or red and blue (or whatever colour is the capitalists')) as you may think.

Originally Posted by Линдзи

Originally Posted by VendingMachine

Mwahahahhaahahah hhahahaha ahhahahahahahahahahahah you've just given me the best proof that you in the West know sod all about what it was like in the Soviet Union. Anyone who grew up in the Soviet Union will tell you that at no point did we have communism in our country, what we did have was socialism and the party leaders said we were building communism, working towards it, but no one in his right mind claimed that we had it.

Believe it or not, this is actually discussed in every history book I've read that covers the USSR. I think the real problem is people in the West don't read, not that the information is unavailable.

Well, there's no denying to the fact that most western teaching books had (and still have) a pro-western mood or attitude to them.

Also, if you really want to, you don't have to do anything after elementary school. For three years, you can sit on your ass and live on welfare. There are actually instances of people in Norway who quit their jobs because the social welfare gives them just as good economy as the former option. No, you won't be rich, but unless you have children to take care of alone, you can live just fine on welfare.

There was no such problem in the former USSR because everyone had to work unless he cant due to illness or so. So there was no welfare for them who did not work.

Originally Posted by Nixer

There was no such problem in the former USSR because everyone had to work unless he cant due to illness or so. So there was no welfare for them who did not work.

(c) "Remember this, student: he who doesn't work, eats." Know the origin of that one?

Originally Posted by selters

Well, there's no denying to the fact that most western teaching books had (and still have) a pro-western mood or attitude to them.

Absolutely. Hurriedly quilled down by imperialist monsters with an urmensch mentality in a fit of rage at everything soviet, the kind of lie-mongering barons who would bite the arms off of their own grandmothers just to prove their lousy points. The only truth is what I tell you. Turn to me for real facts. My truth is the only truth you will never find on bog rolls. Ask BETEP, he knows it.

The alternative to all this, ofcourse, is that both schools of thought are as bad as each other, if not worse.

Originally Posted by JJ

Originally Posted by Zhenya

I've read the ROC regulations, it's very interesting document, .

Zhenya, could you tell please where I can find this document? is it maybe available on line? thank you

Sorry Zhenya!
I was wrong: JJ said something about ROC regulations...
could anyone of you tell me where I can find these documents?

thanks!!