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

Originally Posted by mishau_

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.

sulfa doesn't do anything to alcoholism, well there could be a side effect but not all the time
However it does do something to particular STDs

Originally Posted by Crocodile

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.

Yeah, and what's most amazing, 20 years have passed since the collapse of the evil empire, and still Europe is de-facto divided into two parts, the western one which is doing great, and the eastern one which is not. It's like it was an unfixable screwup.

Originally Posted by Eric C.

Yeah, and what's most amazing, 20 years have passed since the collapse of the evil empire, and still Europe is de-facto divided into two parts, the western one which is going great, and the eastern one which is not. It's like it was an unfixable screwup.

Most of the countries that you are referring to were always rather poor, invaded by first one power then another. Only a few of them ever had power or wealth that was their own.

And secondly, you also have Greece and Spain which are still suffering from having been right wing dictatorships for the better part of the Cold War, largely curtesy of the US -apparently this was the only safeguard against Communists winning elections and taking over unaided. The EU has literally poured money into their economies since they became EU members, which was way before Eastern Europe. Still there are quite fundamental problems.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

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.

We have been through the discussion about this before in this forum and what happened after the war is a matter of interpretation and whose propaganda you choose to believe. Since I did grew up in a country that tried to stand on the side, I got both sides of story growing up, with no strong prejudice. Things have shifted a bit in favour of the US version of events since the end of the Cold War though. And unlike you Crocodile, I obviously never experienced the frustrating and unfair sides to the USSR, so I have no score to settle.

The allied powers split up the continent in areas of interest after the war. Eastern Europe fell in the Soviet sphere of interests. This was agreed by the victorious powers of the time.

All these countries had very strong Communist movements before the war, all the USSR needed to do was give things a push in the direction they wanted and then the local socialists did the rest. Several of the Eastern European countries had their own brand of socialism and did not work with Moscow at all.

The USSR should not have interferred with the way things were going in the Prague spring.

But still today, there are more American troops stationed in Western Europe, than the USSR ever had in Eastern Europe! I guess we cannot be trusted to stay out of mischief without them being there to keep a watchful eye. They have been politely asked to leave a number of times, most recently in Okinawa but just want have it.

Apart from setting up a number of ghastly right wing dictators, in South America and the Middle East, and apart from the many countries where the USA already has military bases (no need to invade, let me know if you need a list, it would be pretty long...) the USA has already invaded or fought wars in the below locations between WW2 and now.

1. Korea (depending on your outlook - but that is a different discussion)
2. Vietnam.
3. Laos
4. Cambodia
5. Dominican Republic
6. Granada
7. Haiti
8. Panama
9. Iraq v1
10. Afghanistan
11. Iraq v2
12. Libya

Roadmap: Iran, Syria, North Korea...

Note that this list does NOT include failed invasion attempts and covert operations.

Can the USSR really top that? Let me see a list in that case!

Korea (depending on your outlook - but that is a different discussion)
Vietnam.
Laos
Cambodia
Dominican Republic
Granada
Haiti
Panama
Iraq v1
Afghanistan
Iraq v2
Libya

Roadmap: Iran, Syria, North Korea...

Note that this list does NOT included failed invasion attempts and covert operations.

Yugoslavia and many small interventions or air attacks.

But still today, there are more American troops stationed in Western Europe, than the USSR ever had in Eastern Europe!

It doesn't seem to be the trueth, but they are more widespread and it is impossible to make them go away.

Obviously if you include the Baltic states, then it's a different story, but they were technically part of the USSR. Other than that I think it was only in Germany and maybe one or two other countries where they had a military presence. Unlike Western Europe where America has some absolutely massive bases nowhere near any sensitive border.

Korea is an example which shows this in modern time since it is still split in a brutal way according to the same Cold War borders as Europe was.

The USSR or China never had any bases there - yet in South Korea there are a number of US bases, not to mention WMDs and nukes.

Originally Posted by Hanna

Obviously if you include the Baltic states, then it's a different story, but they were technically part of the USSR. Other than that I think it was only in Germany and maybe one or two other countries where they had a military presence. Unlike Western Europe where America has some absolutely massive bases nowhere near any sensitive border.

Korea is an example which shows this in modern time since it is still split in a brutal way according to the same Cold War borders as Europe was.

The USSR or China never had any bases there - yet in South Korea there are a number of US bases, not to mention WMDs and nukes.

That's why if you, say, had to move to Korea, you would pick the northern part? =)

USA and USSR used to support different sides in many conflicts. For example, in Arab-Israeli conflict. Also in Nicaragua:

Communism became a powerful ideology all over the world because the country who spread it has the best intelligence agencies like the GRU, KGB and Stasi. Depravity and ruthlessness became the byword that is why they have disciplined spies and counterspies. Death to spies also became a byword in SMERSH! If only I could relive my life all over again going in and out of the Soviet embassy and Vietnamese embassy in Manila rubbing elbows and playing footsies with _______. I used to bring Russian vodka to my army officer neighbours during the era of the Soviet empire. Those were the days oh yes those were the days...

Originally Posted by nulle

But anyway - who will invent new things?
Who will innovate existing?

People will.

Originally Posted by nulle

If they will not get any benefits for their hard work - why bother?

Have you ever done anything just because you wanted to do it? Not because somebody paid you, but simply because you wanted it done? That's what I've been talking about - there will always be people who will be curious enough to continue pushing sciences further and further. Besides, there are non-material benefits that will remain - respect of others, for example, taking pride in your own work, etc.
There will be a choice - to work and get everything and not to work and get the same. Some will choose not to work, but there will be plenty of others.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Have you ever done anything just because you wanted to do it? Not because somebody paid you, but simply because you wanted it done? That's what I've been talking about - there will always be people who will be curious enough to continue pushing sciences further and further. Besides, there are non-material benefits that will remain - respect of others, for example, taking pride in your own work, etc.
There will be a choice - to work and get everything and not to work and get the same. Some will choose not to work, but there will be plenty of others.

I'd rather agree with what you said before - there will be plenty of those who will choose not to work, and there will be some who will consider working as a privilege. But again, it's a fantastic system that would in no way be working now.

402564_3363318292082_1542848808_32999330_515255061_n.jpg

Originally Posted by Deborski

402564_3363318292082_1542848808_32999330_515255061_n.jpg

It's not pretty much of a threat unless you're Iranian. I won't be supporting those backward aggressive fanatic sons of a b*tch just because some tell me to.

Originally Posted by heartfelty

Communism became a powerful ideology all over the world because the country who spread it has the best intelligence agencies like the GRU, KGB and Stasi.

Oh, that's just a brilliant example of a person who doesn't know history but repeats lies that he has been told
Marx's communism has been born in Europe. France, Germany and UK were the pioneers of Marx's communism, long before Russia. Karl Marx is German BTW, if you didn't know
In USA Marx's communism has been developed as CPUSA in 1919. By that time Russia is in the middle of the civil war, no GRU or KGB, they were form way after that German's STACI has been founded in 1950, after WWII

And Germany was a sponsor of the Russian Revolution and Lenin himself was apparentlly a German spy.

That was because Germany wanted Russia's withdrawal from WW1 - which it did.

Marx's communism has been born in Europe.

But they were sane enough to not try to implement it in practice.
At least not in a way Lenin, Stalin & Co. did.

USA and USSR used to support different sides in many conflicts.

USSR supported North Korea.
USA supported South Korea.
Which one you rather be living in?
The same with East and West Germany - they had to build a wall and put armed guards on it to keep people from escaping to the West.

if you include the Baltic states, then it's a different story, but they were technically part of the USSR.

If someone stole your car - is it his now or still yours?

yet in South Korea there are a number of US bases

Of course there are - these nutjobs in the north must be kept in check.

But still today, there are more American troops stationed in Western Europe, than the USSR ever had in Eastern Europe!

Almost all Western Europe is also part of NATO - I don't see anything wrong that US troops are there - they are in the same military alliance after all...

Warsaw Pact governments did a good job of oppressing their people themselves - large USSR military presence was not necessary.

Ruthless, uncaring and incredibly unfair treatment of good people who had done absolutely nothing to deserve it.

That's because in the USSR people and their lives had little to no value...
State's needs were before people's needs - peope were just expendable crap - that was partially the reason why USSR WW2 casualties were so high.

Most of the countries that you are referring to were always rather poor, invaded by first one power then another. Only a few of them ever had power or wealth that was their own.

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.

Plus I genuinely do think there were some good sides to the USSR.

And then come bastards like me and Eric who destroy your overidealized view of the USSR.
These "good sides" were the same things that any decent country is providing to their people right now - education, healthcare, infrastructure building, etc.
Nothing really special.
I'm doing really fine living in exUSSR country - we have not resorted to cannibalism or something like that after USSR dissolution - government is providing its services, schools are working, infrastructure is being built and maintained, etc...
The bad sides of te USSR however outweight the good sides by orders of magnitude.
Lack of basic human rights, oppression and persecutions by the state, etc...

Originally Posted by nulle

I'm doing really fine living in exUSSR country - we have not resorted to cannibalism or something like that after USSR dissolution - ...

Well, if you are really doing so fine why the only thing to discuss for you is how deep you are scared with "Putin's propaganda". Have you ever mentioned that there are some other things in the world outside like music, books, arts, sport?

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.

Yes, nulle, if you live so well and the USSR was so bad, why do so many people regret its failure?
After the fall of the Soviet Union the level of life fell dramatically in its parts. There was hunger in Tadjikistan, there was no fuel in Armenia and so on. And I don't speak about wars.

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?