Thread: Does Communism still have a role to play, or is it dead?

Nulle, what you are outlining is the official post 1992 version of events that most people choose to believe in. I am not denying any of this, but I am saying that there is more to the story and this is not the full truth either. There are lots of people here that don't have the same gloomy view of thing, but a more nuanced one.
A lot of people had more security in their lives, and dignity.

I know there were shortages of some pretty important products that people needed, like shampoo, deodorant etc. (it was noticeable with some people...)
In my childhood I used to wait for the bus at the same metro/bus stop where people got off to catch the Leningrad and Gdansk ferries. Occasionally groups of travellers would pass by to catch a bus to the ferries. I remember how the travellers were carrying massive bags of rather unexpected stuff - basic things that must have been hard to get hold of in the USSR or Poland. Things which we took for granted.

I agree that motivating people is one of the biggest problems with socialism.
If you literally can't sack people, and if they are stuck in a boring job, then they will not make the effort.
In socialism there is a lot of talk about how all jobs are worth the same. But in reality some jobs are less interesting and still not valued in the same way.
When these people fail to do their jobs properly it affects all of society.
I think this is one of the biggest problems with any kind of socialism, or Communism.

And it's not hard to motivate someone who has an interesting job that he enjoys. And as far as I understand the USSR too offered motivation to such people.

The reason why I am taking the position I am, is because I don't like black - white painting history in retrospect. I am not saying I know the answers or that I would have had a plan that would have worked better.
Just want to introduce a bit of a perspective to peoples views!
EDIT>

Plus, I am interested in Political Science and as far as that goes, the experiences of the ex USSR people are extremely interesting. You've seen more in 25 years than many other Europeans have seen in many generations. I think it's wrong to generalise and brush over the experiences of people etc.

Some USSR people spent their lives trying to "build communism" etc with a lot of dedication. I think their efforts merit at least some kind of recognition. They DID achieve things of value even though the long term goal of Communism was not achieved.

In most of Eastern Europe quality of life was higher than in the USSR - they did not bring "culture and enlightement" to countries they invaded.

It happened because the Soviet Union provided such a life to them.

Originally Posted by Hanna

[...]the USA has already invaded or fought wars in the below locations between WW2 and now.

Exactly! That's the whole point. The USA has become a superpower as a result of the WWII, mainly because it suffered the least - the entire infrastructure was intact and all the isolationists in the US were silenced by the Perl Harbor attack. (Can anybody else see a parallel with 9/11? Anyways, it's a different story...)

So, when you start counting your countries, you should start counting from the point the political power has declared an expansion/intervention foreign policy. Not from the end of the WWII. Also, it was already noted here that the US and the USSR were both engaged in the similar military conflicts and covert operations de-facto fighting each other. All those Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, etc.

Originally Posted by Hanna

Roadmap: Iran, Syria, North Korea...

The roadmap for the USSR had officially been the entire world.

Look, I'm not trying to say the US does not have an expansionist foreign policy, it obviously does. But, please, stop idealizing the USSR saying the US is worse than the USSR in the foreign policy or something like that. Any superpower is tempted to grow until the internal tensions are too high, and then the superpower crashes into the smaller pieces. I don't think the US is an exception to that rule.

I appreciate your concern about the abundancy of the US military bases around the world, but you should also realize it's not that easy to withdraw. During the Cold War era, Western Europe was crying to save it from the USSR, hence the NATO, the bases, and the financial dependency of the entire world on the US to mutually maintain the whole thing. (And those bases are not 100% US bases, since the soldiers from the other NATO countries serve there as well. And all NATO countries still contribute money to maintain those bases and it's expensive to them.)

So, now your $1,000,000 question is: if there's no USSR why do we need NATO? And my reply to that would be: because, nothing had fundamentally changed! The major idea of many NATO bases was to have the short-range nuclear weapon so close to the enemy that the enemy would have no chance to launch an attack. (If you have a lot of targets, it lowers the chances of the successful attack.) In the WWIII one side should aim to survive the nuclear winter, otherwise there's no point to start. And as our dear guy Yeltzin had once said: "Clinton for a minute, for a second had forgotten what is Russia, which possess the full arsenal of the nuclear weapon." (Some people still believe he was a democrat and his reforms were democratic and based on that belief they blame the havoc of the 90s on the democrats, but that's another story...)

Can you see my point? It have already been 20 years since the collapse of the USSR, but the global nuclear threat had not gone anywhere. So, if you put yourself in the shoes of a typical NATO high-level strategic planner, what should you do?

1. Continue to have the military bases as widespread in the world as possible, and
2. Prevent the other countries from joining the nuclear club.

Does that tempt the involved parties from the personal exploitation of the system? Of course it does! I don't even think there could be a disagreement on that.

But, what better options do we have right now? The WikiLeaks with all its bravery and heroism cannot stop the nuclar war, won't you agree?

Originally Posted by Crocodile

So, if you put yourself in the shoes of a typical NATO high-level strategic planner, what should you do?

1. Continue to have the military bases as widespread in the world as possible, and
2. Prevent the other countries from joining the nuclear club.

Nukes are very expensive and dangerous for the owner. The main reason to join the nuclear club is to protect oneself from the intrusion of a superpower. So the aggressive politics of USA (and NATO) is the main reason of the nukes' spread over the world nowadays. BTW you can surely remove North Korea from the "roadmap", cause it is already in club. Actually, USA provides help to North Korea each year. So, either a typical NATO high-level strategic planner have a problem with strategic planning or he takes NATO aggressiveness as something uncontrolled and tries only to reduce the consequences (mainly unsuccessfully).

No?

Originally Posted by it-ogo

Nukes are very expensive and dangerous for the owner. The main reason to join the nuclear club is to protect oneself from the intrusion of a superpower. So the aggressive politics of USA (and NATO) is the main reason of the nukes' spread over the world nowadays. BTW you can surely remove North Korea from the "roadmap", cause it is already in club. Actually, USA provides help to North Korea each year. So, either a typical NATO high-level strategic planner have a problem with strategic planning or he takes NATO aggressiveness as something uncontrolled and tries only to reduce the consequences (mainly unsuccessfully).

No?

More than 60 years have passed since the first and last actual use of nuclear weapons. The U.S. used it against their enemy at a war time, and everyone learned their lesson then. Now, these days any use of these weapons is totally unacceptable. Every sane government understands that. No U.S. war operation against dictators anywhere involved nuclear weapons. Now you say one has to have nuclear weapons to "protect themselves". Well, I think those who seriously consider resorting to this kind of weapon, no matter what the reason is, are insane and very dangerous folks, and it's only for that alone they deserve being taken down.

Originally Posted by Eric C.

Well, I think those who seriously consider resorting to this kind of weapon, no matter what the reason is, are insane and very dangerous folks, and it's only for that alone they deserve being taken down.

So either governments of nuclear countries are all insane (including US) or you wrong. I think the second

Originally Posted by Eric C.

Well, I think those who seriously consider resorting to this kind of weapon, no matter what the reason is, are insane and very dangerous folks, and it's only for that alone they deserve being taken down.

From WWII nuclear weapon is used in diplomacy rather than in war. And it is perfectly effective.

I don't judge who deserves what and seriously consider what. I said that after fall of USSR foreign policy of USA is the main reason of spreading nukes. Am I wrong?

Originally Posted by it-ogo

From WWII nuclear weapon is used in diplomacy rather than in war. And it is perfectly effective.

I don't judge who deserves what and seriously consider what. I said that after fall of USSR foreign policy of USA is the main reason of spreading nukes. Am I wrong?

No, that's a great observation.

Originally Posted by it-ogo

I said that after fall of USSR foreign policy of USA is the main reason of spreading nukes. Am I wrong?

You're not wrong by establishing the relationship between those two things. However, I'd say the former is not necessarily the cause for the latter. A new successful weapon was bound to be replicated and improved. The first machine gun was successfully introduced en mass in the Anglo-Boer war. A few decades later all European countries used that weapon. Would you say that the foreign policy of the United Kingdom was the main reason of spreading machine guns?

Before the fall of the USSR, a country would typically not invest anything in its nuclear program. Why to bother? Take either the US side or the USSR side in politics! The superpowers would sort it out in matching the nuclear arsenal of each other. After the fall of the USSR, that freebie is not an option anymore. Hence, in my opinion, the attempts to cook up something in their own kitchen.

Originally Posted by it-ogo

Actually, USA provides help to North Korea each year.

Would you care to provide any sort of evidence?

Originally Posted by Eric C.

Would you care to provide any sort of evidence?

Google helps.

USA helps NK regime to keep stability from 1995. Actually, last about 2 years USA help reduced but it is mainly because China strongly increased help.

Originally Posted by it-ogo

Google helps.

USA helps NK regime to keep stability from 1995. Actually, last about 2 years USA help reduced but it is mainly because China strongly increased help.

Didn't you mean some kind of military help? Because it's obvious many countries provide humanitarian aid to the poor people of that country, as hostages of the system.

Originally Posted by Eric C.

Would you care to provide any sort of evidence?

I guess you have been banned in google
US supplied food as an aid to NK up to 2009 then NK rejected - http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...rth-korea-can/
Now they talking about resuming food aid - U.S., North Korea weigh resumption of food aid - Checkpoint Washington - The Washington Post

Originally Posted by it-ogo

Nukes are very expensive and dangerous for the owner. The main reason to join the nuclear club is to protect oneself from the intrusion of a superpower. So the aggressive politics of USA (and NATO) is the main reason of the nukes' spread over the world nowadays. BTW you can surely remove North Korea from the "roadmap", cause it is already in club. Actually, USA provides help to North Korea each year. So, either a typical NATO high-level strategic planner have a problem with strategic planning or he takes NATO aggressiveness as something uncontrolled and tries only to reduce the consequences (mainly unsuccessfully).

No?

Nice.

"The main reason to join the nuclear club is to protect oneself from the intrusion of a superpower."

Not really. Say, Iran produced 20 nuclear warheads. How could Iran protect itself from the intrusion of Russia or the US? The superpower is not only the possession of the nuclear warheads, but more importantly the ability to destroy the enemy's warheads. If Russia ever wants to invade Iran, the first thing it should plan is to destroy Iran's nuclear silos and destroy the runways that would prevent the nuclear-carrying aircraft from being launched. That should be done just hours BEFORE the first main blow to the enemy's bases. That is a task for the special forces in coordination with the other army units. That's why the USSR needed so many of the special forces. So, when Iran produces 2,000 warheads with a variety of ways to deliver them, the adequate amount of special forces and all the necessary support infrastructure, the intelligence services to figure out what's going on, and many more things, ONLY THEN Iran could say: "Phew, a superpower will not attack me anymore. I'm safe now. But, hey I'm a superpower now myself. Cool!"

In reality, what a country like Iran might do with 5 nuclear warheads of the low quality? With a sane government, to threaten the countries nearby, e.g. Israel, adding more political power. With an insane government, it might be Allah Akbar. In either case Israel would want to strike first because it probably would not want to be held hostage to the power games of the others and that would be a legitimate cause for the war in that case. Meaning, if Iran is 'allowed' to produce a warhead, even one, that would almost inevitably cause the war in the region with millions of civil casualties. The situation in the North Korea, in my opinion, is different by that the South Korea is much more chicken than Israel and they want the NATO doing all the work for them. And NATO isn't really afraid of the NK's nuclear weapons (see above why), so they just hold it on the back burner since they can't afford one more war, both politically and financially. (As a side note, isn't it interesting that since the 1991 the NATO engaged in the wars it doesn't need at all, but now due to that the reputation of NATO is completely ruined internationally? Anyways, that's a totally different topic...)

Originally Posted by Crocodile

...The superpower is not only the possession of the nuclear warheads, but more importantly the ability to destroy the enemy's warheads...

Hey, Crock, Dr. Strangelove's scenarios are obsolete a bit, didn't you notice? It is not about MAD doctrine.

The superpower is a country with a technology of safe aggression. It has a well-trained advanced army and to keep it in a good shape and check new features, makes "training on cats" from time to time. Superpower makes "small victorious war" and its propaganda justify it. To avoid it, potential victim should have one bad nuke without any means of delivery. The very presence of it turns nice technological "small victorious war" into an adventure with unpredictable outcome and occasionally (in case of nuclear explosion) very bad publicity. It is not COMPLETELY safe any more. Superpower will not risk to get into such a dirty bloody story even if the risk is very small.

Originally Posted by it-ogo

Superpower will not risk to get into such a dirty bloody story even if the risk is very small.

I wouldn't bet much money on that statement if I were you. Besides... a nuclear provocation might suddenly take place.

Originally Posted by it-ogo

Hey, Crock, Dr. Strangelove's scenarios are obsolete a bit, didn't you notice? It is not about MAD doctrine.

The superpower is a country with a technology of safe aggression. It has a well-trained advanced army and to keep it in a good shape and check new features, makes "training on cats" from time to time. Superpower makes "small victorious war" and its propaganda justify it. To avoid it, potential victim should have one bad nuke without any means of delivery. The very presence of it turns nice technological "small victorious war" into an adventure with unpredictable outcome and occasionally (in case of nuclear explosion) very bad publicity. It is not COMPLETELY safe any more. Superpower will not risk to get into such a dirty bloody story even if the risk is very small.

I guess, you can't teach an old dog new tricks. You're saying, I'm mentally stuck in the 80s? That's might be true. However, I could turn that back at you, saying you're stuck in the 90s. What war of the 2000s could safely qualify as "a small and victorious"? Afghanistan or Iraq? Neither of those countries possessed even a half of a nuke. Both wars turned ugly for NATO because of the outdated guerilla tactics applied by the poor peasants with next to no weapon. And one of the strongest guerilla practicioner of the recent history Ahmad Shah Masood was killed by the medieval tactics of assassins... So far so good for the 'new features', 'advanced army' and stuff, eh?

I might be old school, but I think all those talks about the monitor-guided high-precision missiles replacing the boots of a soldier are a legacy of the first Iraq and Balkan wars. Those weapons had done what they were built for: destroyed the well-fortified positions. But they did not win the war. The tightest of all integrations between an infantryman and a computer, exoskeleton and what not will not win the war alone. The blows and whistles do not make the US the superpower. It is first a foremost the infrastructure and the stability of the infrastructure.

One of the morale cornerstones of the US army is that 'democracy', 'freedom' and 'liberation' rhetoric. Those who dragged the US into the wars of the 2000s which did not have any apparent benefits knew well. These days the 'democratizator' is a word used for the NATO tanks, the 'freedom' is interpreted as 'slavery to the US, money, and consumption', and 'liberation' is associated with tortures in Guantanamo. The US dollar is under big threat and the international image of the US is far from being the best. The superpower with all the 'well-trained advanced army' can practically do nothing if a private who leaks out classified material is perceived a civic hero by lots of his countrymen and the world.