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

Originally Posted by BappaBa

А если внимательно прочитать?

Excellent! Finally someone had actually opened what the communists' plan is. So, I agree, let's read that passage carefully. What do we see?

1. A prediction: "Но ведь само собой разумеется, что с уничтожением нынешних производственных отношений исчезнет и вытекающая из них общность жен". So, by the 30s the "present system of production" had been totally destroyed. Had the "community of wives" became "open" by itself? No. Thanks to Stalin the family was preserved and even declared important.

2. An explicit plan: "они хотят ввести вместо лицемерно-прикрытой общности жен официальную"

So, if the communists want the community of wives become official and it does not [SURPRISE!!] happens on its own, how the community of wives would become official?

Answer: by force, like everything else the communists had done.

Do you remember that the very first communist government included a very interesting member Alexandra Kolollontai who had openly promoted 'free relationship' and the community of wives. She was very popular [because she gave a brilliant example of how that should be done] but that didn't go anywhere en mass. Lenin didn't push it and Stalin fought it. By the 80s a person could be expelled from the party for the regular adultery.

So far so good for the 'brilliant theory' by Marx.

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 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.

Ядерное оружие создает большой риск для нападающей стороны, поэтому просто так на них никто не нападет.

Originally Posted by Marcus

Ядерное оружие создает большой риск для нападающей стороны, поэтому просто так на них никто не нападет.

That is a blanket statement which is applicable in some cases and is not being applicable in the others. You can say that about almost anything and twist it the way you want.

Example:

Ivan has a gun/knife/stick, so nobody attacks him for no reason. The possible consequences are: (1) Everybody should carry a gun/knife/stick to feel safe. (2) If Ivan was being attacked, that was for a valid reason. (3) If you see see anybody with a gun/knife/stick, you should strike first with a better gun/knife/stick.

Everybody who attacks usually has reasons. If you are a country which is attacking another country with nuclear weapon, you have to first think how to neutralize that weapon or make sure the weapon won't reach you. Once the machine gun was percieved as a war stopper. Indeed, why to attack if the [especially fortified] defense could kill every approaching soldier in the range?

There's no better weapon or worse weapon or obsolete weapon. Every weapon kills. The fight is about the right weapon for the right situation and about creating situations that would benefit your weapon and disadvantage your enemy's weapon. The nuclear weapon is not an absolute weapon and not an exception to that rule. You can attack a country with nuclear weapon and win.

Besides, in case of a global nuclear exchange only about one fourth to one third of the world's population will die (including all factors according to the most pessimistic scenarios). Some more will die out of hunger later, but generally - it wouldn't be all that disasterous as many people think. The humanity will live on. In fact, in the world of global superpowers there is no place for other players so many nations will get a second chance once the main players will be out of the game.

P.S. What I mean is that some ideas start to pop in the minds of high-ranked generals around the world. By 2020 US might be able to neutralize all Russian nuclear forces and I doubt there will be anything that would stop them from using nukes again.

Originally Posted by Ramil

P.S. What I mean is that some ideas start to pop in the minds of high-ranked generals around the world. By 2020 US might be able to neutralize all Russian nuclear forces and I doubt there will be anything that would stop them from using nukes again.

I agree, that threat is real. Nobody had cancelled the tactic nuclear weapons yet and in some cases (e.g. to destroy an aircraft carrier) that is one of the valid options. And it's obvious that some of the Russian strategic missiles would slip through causing that very global destruction you mentioned. I'm not sure how that scenario could be reliably prevented.

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

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 Crocodile

I'm not sure how that scenario could be reliably prevented.

ABM and high precision weapons. Even if some lucky missile slips through the grid, 10-15 million of civilian losses might be considered 'acceptable collateral damage'.

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.

Originally Posted by Ramil

ABM and high precision weapons. Even if some lucky missile slips through the grid, 10-15 million of civilian losses might be considered 'acceptable collateral damage'.

You see, the USSR at Andropov's time had much better strategy without the high precision stuff. Conquer the continent and don't let the US to help it. Then, eventually the US would not be able to sustain NATO alone when the world market will shrink. So, the communists in the US would eventually win. Problem solved. (Of course, relatively young Andropov did not live long.) It won't be clean like that in case the NATO would assault Russia. Not sure if the 10-15 million is a price the US politicians would be willing to pay.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Not sure if the 10-15 million is a price the US politicians would be willing to pay.

Not now, perhaps, not yet. But what can we say about the next decade with a relative certainity? I doubt the world's economy will be able to live through the current crisis without losses. What else? Everything will become more expensive, food included. The problems with migrants will become more and more serious, etc, etc, etc.
The Middle East has a very high chances to explode which will cause oil prices skyrocket. I'm not saying that this will surely happen, but the probabilities are rather high. The rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer. A global war will be a logical move at that point. It may sound strange, but a war can in fact provide a way out of the current stalemate, not the best way, but stupidity rules...

Originally Posted by Ramil

The Middle East has a very high chances to explode which will cause oil prices skyrocket. I'm not saying that this will surely happen, but the probabilities are rather high. The rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer. A global war will be a logical move at that point. It may sound strange, but a war can in fact provide a way out of the current stalemate, not the best way, but stupidity rules...

Some time back, one smart person mentioned to me that the oil crisis in the Middle East might benefit the US oil producers since the government would authorize full scale excavation of the oil reserves. Also, when the oil prices start growing uncontrollably, other fuel options become economically viable. For example:

"The global oil-shale industry began to revive at the beginning of the 21st century. In 2003, an oil-shale development program restarted in the United States. Authorities introduced a commercial leasing program permitting the extraction of oil shale and oil sands on federal lands in 2005, in accordance with the Energy Policy Act of 2005." Oil shale - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And since the production of goods had mainly shifted to the Asian countries, the export of oil might offset the import costs of goods from Asia... Anyways, not sure this is a right place and time to bring up that discussion. Probably, when the immature slogans like "The US simply wants to control the entire world and the only obstacle to that is Russia" will cease to be used irresponsibly... Anyways, you got the picture.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Some time back, one smart person mentioned to me that the oil crisis in the Middle East might benefit the US oil producers since the government would authorize full scale excavation of the oil reserves. Also, when the oil prices start growing uncontrollably, other fuel options become economically viable. For example:

"The global oil-shale industry began to revive at the beginning of the 21st century. In 2003, an oil-shale development program restarted in the United States. Authorities introduced a commercial leasing program permitting the extraction of oil shale and oil sands on federal lands in 2005, in accordance with the Energy Policy Act of 2005." Oil shale - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

... or US can be quietly preparing for a global war

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Probably, when the immature slogans like "The US simply wants to control the entire world and the only obstacle to that is Russia" will cease to be used irresponsibly... Anyways, you got the picture.

But Crodocile, dear, US really wants to control the entine world , and unfortunately Russia is not an obstacle any more.

Originally Posted by Ramil

But Crodocile, dear, US really wants to control the entine world , and unfortunately Russia is not an obstacle any more.

They were empires of 19th century who wanted to control as much of the world as possible. USA is a national state, it wants to teach life, have profit, be the first and, occasionally, perform some charity. But unlike empires it does not want to take full responsibility of the long consequences of its policy and fate of minor peoples.

Originally Posted by it-ogo

They were empires of 19th century who wanted to control as much of the world as possible. USA is a national state, it wants to teach life, have profit, be the first and, occasionally, perform some charity. But unlike empires it does not want to take full responsibility of the long consequences of its policy and fate of minor peoples.

So, what was the empire that did care about what happened to regular people?

This is pretty interesting, I have a bit of catching up to do on this thread.

But in the meantime, can I just ask something? Did the USSR "admit" to being a "dictatorship of the proletariat" per Marx' writings, or not?
Or did it not consider itself to be a dictatorship...? I mea, since there were actual elections in the USSR as far as I am aware.

Originally Posted by it-ogo

They were empires of 19th century who wanted to control as much of the world as possible. USA is a national state, it wants to teach life, have profit, be the first and, occasionally, perform some charity. But unlike empires it does not want to take full responsibility of the long consequences of its policy and fate of minor peoples.

These are neo-empires. They don't take responsibilities, they only exploit resources and their influence. Why taking responsibilities if you don't have to but still getting every other betefit?