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

Originally Posted by nulle

Interesting then - how will new inventions appear on the "market" under communism?

There will be no market if communism would be everywhere
That was the INITIAL and NECESSARY goal of the Marx theory. He wanted communism to be world wide
you can imagine that US(or any other country with built capitalism) would consider it is as terrorism

Originally Posted by Hanna

When it comes to innovation and standard of living in the USSR, what are you comparing it with? Africa or Germany? A black American in the South, a poor farmer in Kentucky or a company director in New York?

I'm comparing the soviet-made calculators to the US-made calculators and the soviet-made cars with Italy-made cars. They are exactly the same.

Originally Posted by Hanna

Most of the major Western powers got rich through imperialism, colonialism or slavery. Through exploiting peasants, workers and even child labourers.

Most of the major Western power riches which were gained that way were destroyed during the WWI and WWII. Japan have not done all that imperialist/colonialist/slavery stuff, but despite that it's one of the major innovative nations in the world.

Originally Posted by Hanna

Then today, neo-colonialism in the form of sweatshops, forced bargain prices on third world produce etc. Or even starting a war or an invasion to get cheap access to the assets you need.

I think we've been through that in several circles. The USSR had their peasants exploited in the way unimaginable to the sweatshop neo-colonialists. Those peasants had not even have the passports so they were unable to leave their place of living. And if they had done the trick to leave, they weren't accepted in the cities without the employment. And they were only hired to do the dirtiest job no regular city worker would do. The neo-colonialist sweatshops is fairly comparable to what it was.

Originally Posted by Hanna

The USSR had many amazing achievements and inventions, just not in the area of consumer products.

I agree. I think that what I said to nulle. There were a lot of inventions even in the consumer products area, but they were rarely implemented. Perhaps, one of the most famous example in the innovation area is the stealth technology which originates from Russia. It was rejected by the USSR bureaucrats, but it was successfully implemented by the US. We have all seen what effect the stealth bombers had.

Most of the major Western power riches which were gained that way were destroyed during the WWI and WWII. Japan have not done all that imperialist/colonialist/slavery stuff, but despite that it's one of the major innovative nations in the world.

Japan were major imperialists prior to WW2. They had all of Korea, Taiwan, Manchuria and lots of islands that I don't keep track of. They treated the Koreans and Manchurians more or less like slaves. Their know-how did not disappear just because they were defeated in the war.
After the war they did absolutely everything that the USA asked of them politically and they work fanatically hard. Hence they were able to create an export industry that did not start out as an inventor, but moved gradually towards that.

I think that is because the main business in Russia is still exporting raw materials and not production. Production requires innovation to stay competitive.

You mixed the cause and the consequensis here. We produce mainly raw materials because of the free trade and capitalism.

Originally Posted by Doomer

There will be no market if communism would be everywhere
That was the INITIAL and NECESSARY goal of the Marx theory. He wanted communism to be world wide
you can imagine that US(or any other country with built capitalism) would consider it is as terrorism

No market, then people will be teleporting them or something. Again as I said, let's wait till your thoughts are enough to create material stuff, and there are people who are ready to voluntarily work for other's welfare.

Originally Posted by Marcus

You mixed the cause and the consequensis here. We produce mainly raw materials because of the free trade and capitalism.

"Yeah, it's George Bush's fault!" (c)

Most of the major Western power riches which were gained that way were destroyed during the WWI and WWII. Japan have not done all that imperialist/colonialist/slavery stuff, but despite that it's one of the major innovative nations in the world.

Japan were major imperialists prior to WW2. They had all of Korea, Taiwan, Manchuria and lots of islands that I don't keep track of. They treated the Koreans and Manchurians more or less like slaves. Their know-how did not disappear just because they were defeated in the war.
After the war they did absolutely everything that was asked of them politically and they work fanatically hard. Hence they were able to create an export industry that did not start out as an inventor, but moved gradually towards that.

Those peasants had not even have the passports so they were unable to leave their place of living.

That's true - my grandparent's passports belonged belonged to kolkhoz chairman - they were not allowed to move - especially because they have been deported and were considered "enemies of the state" by KGB.

If UK and other colonial powers colonized places with a lot lower living standards than their country - USSR did the opposite - they looted places that were richer than their country - Baltic States, Finland, Poland, Germany, Austria, etc...

There will be no market if communism would be everywhere

That's why I put word "market" in quotes.
If there will be no money and no market in capitalist sense, etc.
How new products will appear in stores?
How they will be manufactured and who will decide what to manufacture, what to replace, and what new to introduce?
Nowadays free market does that quite good - people "vote" with their wallets.

And Hanna - you mentioned sweatshops - but nowadays they are mostly in undemocratic and totalitarian states like China.
And after USSR collapse - we do not have to work in sweatshops - at least my family lives a lot better than we did under Soviet occupation.

Originally Posted by Marcus

You mixed the cause and the consequensis here. We produce mainly raw materials because of the free trade and capitalism.

Not quite. Today's export of raw materials is a business which is among the few surviving the crush of the USSR. The USSR had exported raw materials, especially oil to sustain the state at least since Khrushev's time. It reached the peak of production by the end of its existence in 1991:

File:Top Oil Producing Counties.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You mixed the cause and the consequenses here. We produce mainly raw materials because of the free trade and capitalism.

Raw materials were practically the only thing that West purchased from USSR - they did not need any other goods (maybe with some exceptions) produced in the USSR.

And how comes that other former USSR countries (that do not have oil or gas) can maintain higher standard of living than Russia without raw material export?

Originally Posted by nulle

That's why I put word "market" in quotes.
If there will be no money and no market in capitalist sense, etc.
How new products will appear in stores?
How they will be manufactured and who will decide what to manufacture, what to replace, and what new to introduce?

I guess if it would be an easy answer - we would have communism everywhere by now

Part of communism is going to be restored in Russia, since Russia's head sanitary inspector Onischenko has proposed reintroducing the Soviet practice of compulsory prisoning for alcoholics. Now this practice is in action in Belarus.

That explains why I saw only 1 alcoholic in over 2 months in Belarus.
The police were practically charitable to him though - that was the amazing thing. Asked him if he was ok etc. He collapsed on the street and was very drunk.
They might have saved beating him up until they got to the prison, what do I know...

And how comes that other former USSR countries (that do not have oil or gas) can maintain higher standard of living than Russia without raw material export?

Really? Why do we have so many migrants from the former Soviet Union?

Originally Posted by Hanna

That explains why I saw only 1 alcoholic in over 2 months in Belarus.
The police were practically charitable to him though - that was the amazing thing. Asked him if he was ok etc. He collapsed on the street and was very drunk.
They might have saved beating him up until they got to the prison, what do I know...

I think the chief doctor means special prison camps the ones where doctors torture their aloholic pacients with sulfa (sulfadiazine injections). My schoolmate was in such a camp for a year term, he said sulpha was real hell.

Are you serious? That is disgusting!

And a serious comment: People might think I have taken the position of the USSR in this discussion. I am doing that because I think that many people who are not Russian have misguided or incorrect information about the USSR, based on propaganda and exaggerations. I think it helps if a native English speaker (more or less) who has no sense of old patriotism etc invested, like me, takes the opposite perspective. Plus I genuinely do think there were some good sides to the USSR.

USSR is not the same as communism though. It was more a rather rigid type of socialism... or maybe "state capitalism" as my dad said. If there is ever a country that manages to achieve communism, it probably won't look anything like the USSR. It would probably be a very small country and a people with quite different national characteristics from the Russians.

However this kind of thing really makes me dislike aspects of the USSR!

Freezerbox Magazine - Inside the Zone

Ruthless, uncaring and incredibly unfair treatment of good people who had done absolutely nothing to deserve it. Their own citizens. This was the kind of stuff that came out in the 1990s with a new horrible story every week. Growing up. I had considered myself marginally socialist before then, without even reflecting on it much. But this kind of stuff made me turn my back for a very long time!

While talking about world peace, solidarity and lots of rosy ideals, decent people were allowed to die in what almost certainly must have been an experiment in the effects of radiation.

I know that the USA has been doing stuff like this too, including cruel experiments on their own citizens. But I do think that the USSR did this on a bigger scale than the USA did, and more respect for its own citizens. (The US tends goes abroad for their evil deeds.) The USSR did stuff like this right in their own backyard and people had no fair chance to find out the truth and do something about it, or even protest.

Originally Posted by Hanna

(The US tends goes abroad for their evil deeds.) The USSR did stuff like this right in their own backyard

Are you serious? What's the difference between the presence of the US in Afghanistan and the presence of the USSR in Afghanistan?

Trust you Croc to jump on the one sentence that stands out.

Yeah, I think the USSR should have left Afghanistan alone. I have mentioned that several times here in this forum.
Definitely a cause I sympathised with in my teens - I even had a little button for it on my school bag for a while. "Sovjet ut ur Afghanistan!" But it's over 20 years ago now. It's hard to muster up strong feelings about it.So much has been happening since then.

But at least it was next door, so they had some kind of half reasonable excuse of ensuring stability at their borders, whereas the USA has no excuse that makes any sense unless you factor in regional politics or the Afghanistan oil pipeline. I don't buy for a second that anyone in the US is so stupid that they thought they'd finish moslem terrorism by taking over Afghanistan.

But if you compare the USAs invasions in the last 20-30 years, with the record of the USSR, I think it's pretty obvious who is the most aggressive. They USSR did not operate at a rate of a new war or invasion every 2-3 years like the USA has been for a very long period of time.

Originally Posted by Hanna

But if you compare the USAs invasions in the last 20-30 years, with the record of the USSR, I think it's pretty obvious who is the most aggressive. They USSR did not operate at a rate of a new war or invasion every 2-3 years like the USA has been for a very long period of time.

The USSR had done it more effectively. One wave of a magic wand, and the entire Eastern Europe has now new communist governments. Any uprising in Checholosvakiya or Hungary, would have to welcome the Soviet Army. The US with all its aggressiveness has yet to achieve that outstanding record.

The US with all its aggressiveness has yet to achieve that outstanding record.

Oh yes, but it certainly seems we are trying We are the "Empire of Good" don't ya know.