# Forum About Russia Politics  Does Communism still have a role to play, or is it dead?

## Hanna

Since we have several people who are knowledgeable about Communism here, let's consider whether we think that Communism still has something to offer to the modern world, or if it is dead dying...  
In the 1990s all the talk was about the "Death of Communism" and how it was disgraced and would never again be relevant... The idea was that Communism was not able to survive on its own merits but needed such a tight control on any country where it was implemented, that the situation became intolerable for the very people it was supposed to liberate. Etc, etc. It stifled peoples work ethics and did not manage to produce the type of goods that people wanted. Plus there were endless examples of people being mistreated in the name of Communism.  
But on the other hand, looking at the world today, we see rampant economic imperialism, the self destruction of capitalism that Marx predicted, growing class differences, greedy corporations trying to control people while slowly eroding culture, art and high ideals for the addictive junk culture that is the easiest and most profitable to sell. We are seeing wars for profit and while western workers are treated better than before, it is now sweatshop workers in other countries that are being (often) cruelly exploited just like in the days of Marx. Occupy Wall Street and the Arab Spring...   So - is Communism dead or does it still have something to offer?Does it need to be replaced by some other ideology that can fight against injustices and greed?Do you think the predictions of Socialist philosophers are coming true, or have they been proven false?What will be the fate of the remaining socialist/communist countries? 
My own knowledge of socialism has some serious gaps, and might be a bit too idealistic, so I am mainly interested to hear what others think.

----------


## Doomer

Communism can only exist if all members of the society are highly educated and high moral persons
Not even single country succeeded in building of communism
However the idea of communism can be found in smaller groups and closed societies, on top secret scientific labs/bases for example, where people cannot get out to the real world but willing to spend their lives working on something interesting  ::  
Once you start forcing people to communism you can rather start calling it totalitarianism or sometimes socialism

----------


## it-ogo

There are theory and practice. 
Theoretically classical Marxism (based on the idea of proletariat domination) became obsolete when informational society replaced industrial one and proletariat became a minority. As for Communism as an idea of perfect society, now there is no prove it is possible and no grounded plan to obtain it. On the other hand the idea of social justice will always be attractive. 
In practice, all the regimes that proclaimed Communism as their ultimate goal were unsuccessful. On the other hand half-bred Socialism, which was implemented in Scandinavian countries, proved to be viable and rather nice. But you know more about that, Jo. 
 In ex-USSR countries Communistic symbols and rhetorics is a synonym of conservatism, patriotism and old-good-times for some part of elder population, nothing more.

----------


## Ramil

Communism is still possible, I think, but not in the way Lenin or Marx saw it. And not in the near future.
If we imagine a society where the level of automation, overall production and energy output have reached a point to enable 1-2% of population to sustain the other 98-99% (by at least providing three basic essentials like food, clothing and houses for free) it will be technically an era of early communism. There will be no need for ideology or high moral principles of all society members. I may think too badly for the mankind, but I'm sure that 80-90% of population will stop working at this point being content with that free social minimum. Oh, there will be all sorts of poets, sculptors, musicians, movie producers and actors (yes, the majority of population) because there will be very little real work left (and 1-2% of those who really want to will continue to provide for the rest). To be more precise - people will start choosing their occupations according to their desires. Their choice will be dictated by what they really *want* to do and not by what they *should* do in order to survive. This, of course, will create many new problems, but I'll let the future generations to sort them out.

----------


## Hanna

> There are theory and practice. 
> Theoretically classical Marxism (based on the idea of proletariat domination) became obsolete when informational society replaced industrial one and proletariat became a minority. As for Communism as an idea of perfect society, now there is no prove it is possible and no grounded plan to obtain it. On the other hand the idea of social justice will always be attractive. 
> In practice, all the regimes that proclaimed Communism as their ultimate goal were unsuccessful. On the other hand half-bred Socialism, which was implemented in Scandinavian countries, proved to be viable and rather nice. But you know more about that, Jo. 
>  In ex-USSR countries Communistic symbols and rhetorics is a synonym of conservatism, patriotism and old-good-times for some part of elder population, nothing more.

 Interesting and informative post! Thanks for responding. 
Funny that there are people who think if Communism as Conservative.  
As for Sweden - well, now that I am (temporarily) back here, I have my rose-coloured expat specs OFF and it's an absolute disgrace what has happened to all the nice (but occassionally annoying) socialist institutions of the past. Particularly a lot of previously state owned companies have been privatised and are providing a considerably WORSE service than before, with 1 grumpy stressed employee doing the job that was previously done by 2 people. At 3 times the old price...  
The trains used to be clean, modern and punctual. Now, in the hands of their new private owners they are dirty, outdated and delayed! The only thing they have got better at, is checking the tickets.  
The country used to be much cleaner before as well, we were famous for it. But now it's so bloody dirty and messy everywhere because street cleaning is carried out by some private company that does the bare minimum with as few employees as they can possibly get away with.  
Previously, they were out ploughing and sanding the streets in about 5 minutes after it started snowing. Snow maintenance crew member was the ultimate job for alcoholics that could not manage anything else. Everything worked perfectly. 
 But it is not profitable to have snow maintenance crews standing by all winter.... so now that even snow ploughing has to be profitable there is chaos in the morning every time it has snowed....! 
The two major old things that are still around are free child care and a  central queue for rental flats. Both of these thing just irritate me at  the moment. I was offered a flat which was very nice, but located in an absolute dump an hour from town by commuter train. So I declined it and got a harsh telling off.  And since it's virtually impossible to sack anyone, no company dares hire people properly so every other job is done by a temp from an agency, or a consultant.

----------


## Ramil

> The country used to be much cleaner before as well, we were famous for it. But now it's so bloody dirty and messy everywhere because street cleaning is carried out by some private company that does the bare minimum with as few employees as they can possibly get away with.

 But you're still democratic and preach multiculturalism...  ::  I wonder when the Europeans will finally say 'That's enough!' Do they still have that potential?

----------


## Hanna

> But you're still democratic and preach multiculturalism...  I wonder when the Europeans will finally say 'That's enough!' Do they still have that potential?

 No.... Sweden is rather spineless, sadly. Since we lost our empire the last viking spirit left the country.... (darn Russia!!!) It tends to get carried away with whatever ideological ideas are fashionable. Anything from racial hygiene to left wing utopianism. 
Right now it's multiculturalism (right - because that always works out so well.... NOT!!!!) 
The latest thing is feminsm. Even men have to be feminist, I am not joking. Political parties talk incessantly about how "feminist" they are, and feminism has some really weird results in the work place - mainly that many men cooly leave work at about 3 o'clock to collect their kids at the creche.  
The idea is the more men are like women, and women are like men, the better. 
It's just really irritating. I like being a woman and don't want to pretend that I have the personality and interests of a man. Similarly it is to me neither attractive, nor much point in men trying to be like women. 
Saying something like this is totally unacceptable in Sweden at the moment.
A bit like saying America's invasion of Vietnam was justified, in the 1970s.... Haha!

----------


## Ramil

Living up to your ears in hypocricy about multiculturalism, equal rights, feminism etc is a good way to keep the lid of the pot tightly pressed until the pot explodes. And it is usually very messy.

----------


## Hanna

Well if we ever have a revolution here, it will have to be scheduled for the summer because it's too dark and cold for ANYTHING to happen in the winter. Probably people would get so hung up around getting a permit and filling in forms and follow the process for  having a revolution... that nothing would ever happen! 
Right now it feels like Norway have their oil and gas and can do whatever they please. 
Finns work hard and are finally having a bit of luck with their economy. And using their proximity to Russia and EU membership for a successful synergy - it is booming. 
Only Sweden is confused, disillusioned and starting to lag behind....

----------


## Pavelov

> Living up to your ears in hypocricy about multiculturalism, equal rights, feminism etc is a good way to keep the lid of the pot tightly pressed until the pot explodes. And it is usually very messy.

 EDIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  ::   ::  
Why do so many people here reply to this socialist feminist? I PERCEIVE A HYPOCRITE. Say one thing and then the total opposite in the next sentence. 
"Right now it's multiculturalism (right - because that always works out so well.... NOT!!!!)" LOL! YOU CANNOT BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY. When will Russians here have real political discussions here? 
And for the record, Communism won't work. It hasn't worked anywhere and it's 2012 so what Marx viewed doesn't apply. The State interference in society and economy is what is causing the decay of economies. The enabling of bankers is based on an incestuous relationship with Government and Finance. These are socialist inventions. It's crony capitalism. (Edited.L.)Maybe I'll get a visit since that other guy Marc can't call this out either. 
I edited my own post. I am sure, it would have been. Also, for the record, I think Hanna and her sister have posts that seem to indicate brainwashing.

----------


## Ramil

> Well if we ever have a revolution here, it will have to be scheduled for the summer because it's too dark and cold for ANYTHING to happen in the winter. Probably people would get so hung up around getting a permit and filling in forms and follow the process for  having a revolution... that nothing would ever happen!

 1317350717_facepalm_3.jpg 
Yes, that's the bigest European problem that need to be solved.

----------


## nulle

Communism in theory is nice.
You go and work for free, then you go to a store and take what you want for free. 
The main problem is - why should I work if I can just go and take what I want?

----------


## Ramil

> Communism in theory is nice.
> You go and work for free, then you go to a store and take what you want for free. 
> The main problem is - why should I work if I can just go and take what I want?

 Read my post above (#4 in this thread). Apparently you belong to those 98-99% who will do exactly that - parasite on the system. There will be 1-2% however who will do all the work for free simply because they feel like working a little. Work will become a privilege, not a burden. 
It is possible. We just don't have all necessary technologies yet.

----------


## Hanna

haha, saw your picture and remembered, the Star Trek universe is allegedly communist. In the future!   *Live long and prosper!*

----------


## nulle

> It is possible. We just don't have all necessary technologies yet.

 I agree, that when everything is nearly 100% automated - it might be possible.

----------


## Crocodile

Let's say, the system is 99% automated and it produces the goods to satisfy the 'basic needs' according to Ramil.  
Say, I go to the store to get a bottle of vodka and meet Ramil in the same store. So, we start chatting and then discover Hanna is not in the store to pick up her daily fresh flower basket. It turned out Hanna got sick that day and the flower basket got delivered to her right to her doorstep (by automation, I guess). So, then I start asking: why do I have to get up and go to the store to get vodka? Ah, says Ramil, that's because that's not your basic need, since you can go to the store yourself. So, for you that would just be a comfort. And the comfort cannot be satisfied by definition, since there's never limits to the comfort. But, then I say: ok, but the store is closer to me than to Ramil, so Ramil would normally go an extra mile, meaning the location adds more value to me than to Ramil. Are you ok with that, Ramil? He would say, of course I'm not, I think I should live closer to the store because I'm doing sports for fun and I get tired more than Crocodile who is only writing poems all day long, also for fun. In the end, we all agree that there's no social justice until the food is delivered right to the doorstep of both Ramil's and mine.  
And after that basic need is satisfied, we start wondering about who is going to cook for us? The freely delivered food tastes bad and not healthy, and both of us can't cook, so should we be going on destroying our health and writing worse poems and achieving worse results in sports than we could? No, we want the delicious and healthy food for both of us! And that would be another basic needs. So, let's say that is resolved by the automation. The next one is the orientation. Hanna is getting more sun, because her apartment faces the South, and Ramil's and mine are facing the North. Getting enough sun is a healthy issue and therefore is basic need. So, me and Ramil applied and got the automated parabolic outside mirrors which reflect the sun delivering some of it into our apartments. Then a new issue arises.. and so on. There's never end even to the so-called 'basic needs'. 
And then, the bigger issue starts to loom: the socially just wealth distribution. Say, you have 7 people and 3 pieces of bread. So, Ramil says: there cannot be Communism in that case! The basic needs would have to be satisfied by automation. Ok, so let's do that and change the question: there are 7 people and 11 pieces of bread. Who gets the pieces and how many? Based on what?  
Since, both of the problems (the satisfaction of the basic needs and the socially just distribution) cannot really be solved fairly, the Communism implementation according to Ramil is not feasible. There may be more Communism or less Communism, but there never could be THE Communism. What do you think of that?

----------


## it-ogo

> ...

 Impressive "towel", Cap. "Consumer society is incapable of self-restraint" TM

----------


## Hanna

> It is possible. We just don't have all necessary technologies yet.

 I agree with those that say Communism is a lovely idea, and that human nature is the obstacle.
It's too bad that humanity is not (yet?) at the point whereby it can work. Also, I don't like revolutions and lots of the bad stuff that comes with implementing communism or even socialism.  
But I particularly like "from all according to their abilities, to all according to their needs. 
I am aware that socialist countries to varying degrees try to educate / influence people from childhood, to become better human beings, that would function better under Communism. But I am not sure how successful that really is/was. 
The Christian view on socialism/communism is interesting too: 
According to the Christianity I grew up with, Jesus pretty much WAS a socialist... The disciples shared everything, and likewise the early Christians, Jesus despised wealth and preached against rich people. Liberation theology etc. Christianity was all about solidarity and taking care of the weaker people in society.  
According to other Christians, for example many in the UK and US, socialism is practically un-christian and communism is impossible due to the sinful nature of people. To try to create a paradise on Earth  goes against God's will. Not to mention the fact that Marx was rather anti-religion.  
Then we have the argument that nobody has actually managed really Communism anyway, so there is no telling whether it actually works once it is in place.  
But I share Nulle's worries that people simply get lazy and don't work unless there is something making them. The majority of people do not have jobs that are stimulating, interesting or fulfilling... 
Perhaps in the future when robots do all the boring work and humans do only interesting work, it would work. 
Or perhaps somebody could refine communism in such a way that people have sufficient incentive to work, without having to threaten them.

----------


## Crocodile

> Impressive "towel", Cap. "Consumer society is incapable of self-restraint" TM

 And I don't necessarily think it's a bad thing. I know it's probably common to compare the Communist regimes to the prison, but let's look at that objectively. The inmates have clothes, roof, work, and some leisure time. The basic needs are satisfied. To the cave men, that would seem like a very decent life. Nobody is dying from hunger. There's even some medical service. At least, much more than you could wish in the tribal society. Some leisure time allows for some intellectual and creative life, like books and art. So, the Communism exists now. For the cave men though. 
If that would seem like stretching it out, let's look closer to a typical person on the financial relief (like Welfare) in a typical bloody-sucking capitalist country. That person would have free: one-room apartment, food, clothes, etc. and don't even have to work for that! Isn't that the Communism a typical proletarian of the end 19th century would dream? It's right here, before our eyes! No need for Great October Socialist Revolution, Civil War, Industrialization... 
Why the prison or the welfare is not acceptable for everyone? Obviously it's due to the social competition, which I think is a positive and constructive optimization force. We want to maximize our comfort and minimize our efforts. It's thanks to that drive that we're not in a cave right now.

----------


## Marcus

> I agree with those that say Communism is a lovely idea

 I don't agree.

----------


## Ramil

Crododile, I can only agree with it-ogo:   

> Impressive "towel", Cap. "Consumer society is incapable of self-restraint" TM

 Your speculations are wrong and here's why. You just put yourself and me (present day people) into a future so distant that normally even our great-grand children would be long in their graves by that time. You don't seriously expect our present day views would be still sound then, do you? Changes I spoke about will take time to happen, they won't just occur overnigt. Along with that peoples' views on life will change also and in great many ways. So we can only accept the fact that we cannot make any speculations about how people will act then. I'm only saying that technology level will eventually reach a point when, as I already said, 1-2% of population will be able to provide for the rest 98-99%. By that time, it is quite possible that people will live not only on Earth but on some other planets or even other solar systems. Yes, I'm speaking about that distant a future. So, Crocodile, you can calm your fears, no communism will happen during your lifetime. You can consume and continue being a capitalist without second thoughts.

----------


## Ramil

> Perhaps in the future when robots do all the boring work and humans do only interesting work, it would work. 
> Or perhaps somebody could refine communism in such a way that people have sufficient incentive to work, without having to threaten them.

 That's the trick. We don't have to worry about 'sinful human nature'. At some point thing would turn upside down. People WILL be willing to work, because, as I said, work (a real work) will be too scarse. You can do nothing and get anything from that, but really, how boring this would become eventually? No goal, no focus, nothing to do... I see more problems in this area rather than in 'wealth distribution problem'.

----------


## Marcus

> from all according to their abilities, to all according to their needs.

 Who will determin the abilities and especially needs?

----------


## Ramil

> If that would seem like stretching it out, let's look closer to a typical person on the financial relief (like Welfare) in a typical bloody-sucking capitalist country. That person would have free: one-room apartment, food, clothes, etc. and don't even have to work for that! Isn't that the Communism a typical proletarian of the end 19th century would dream? It's right here, before our eyes! No need for Great October Socialist Revolution, Civil War, Industrialization...

 Oh well, but you bloody capitalists at the same time fill his mind with images of supercars, diamonds and opulent palaces by the seaside. You tempt people, you desire his soul in exchange for devil's gold. You turn him into a consumption machine. That's the difference.  ::  You impress him with false values ridiculing much more important virtues.
Capitalists say - everything's possible, you just need to work very hard and you'll be rich and successful. THAT'S BULL$HIT, you know.

----------


## Hanna

> You can do nothing and get anything from that, but really, how boring this would become eventually? No goal, no focus, nothing to do... I see more problems in this area rather than in 'wealth distribution problem'.

 You are thinking like Isaac Asimov then. He predicted a future when robots would do all the work. However because there was nothing to spur the humans on, no incentive for doing anything really, society stopped developing, no new inventions were made, there was stagnation. Despite the robot based society being richer it eventually lost out to a society that banned robots and did the work themselves. (this is in Asimov's "Robot" series)    

> Who will determin the abilities and especially needs?

 That is the $1,000,000 question my friend...  
And your answer is?   

> What do you think of that?

  I propose that a super computer programmed with the best wealth  distribution algorithms, as well as formulas for the practical  application of communism might be able to solve all these problems Croc! 
 So that everyone gets an allocation that adds up to the same value. Then  if it turns out that you particularly value a South facing flat and can  get by on less vodka... then you can log this in the system and the  computer can organise a swap with somebody who wants more vodka but  doesn't care about the orientation of their flat.... ETC! 
 Plus the computer is not prone to abuse of power, cronyism or anything similar.

----------


## Marcus

> And your answer is?

 I see the strong connection between socialist ideas and totalitarism. So I'm afraid that will be some kind of rulers who will decide. The state or something like that even if it won't be called like that.

----------


## Pavelov

Also, liars, manipulators and hypocrites.   Funny how all Communist systems in history have been cut throat and people have suffered.    These communists posting say they love it and then in a subsequent sentence pretend they're not communists.   Human nature is human nature. 
Capitalism is imperfect but it is practiced via STATE INTERVENTION (i.e. interference) and that intervention steadily increases in phases.   So, when you criticize it, you might want to keep that in mind.   Communists don't and left wingers always want to deceive as evident in this entire forum.

----------


## it-ogo

> If that would seem like stretching it out, let's look closer to a typical person on the financial relief (like Welfare) in a typical bloody-sucking capitalist country. That person would have free: one-room apartment, food, clothes, etc. and don't even have to work for that! Isn't that the Communism a typical proletarian of the end 19th century would dream? It's right here, before our eyes! No need for Great October Socialist Revolution, Civil War, Industrialization...

 Yes, this IS the Communism by fact. Why some people are unhappy? 
    When we speak about basic needs we forget to formulate strictly - needs for what? Needs for survival? With things like Welfare it is satisfied. In fact, they are needs for justice. If every person feels that everything is just - it is the Communism. But if everything is already just, what should we fight for and live for? If everything is forever just, the real life (with real work and real responsibility) is over and all we left to do are games of all kind. Homo ludens. 
Communism is a kind of absolute abstraction like death or nirvana.

----------


## Crocodile

> I'm only saying that technology level will eventually reach a point  when, as I already said, 1-2% of population will be able to provide for  the rest 98-99%.

 That's true I'm speculating as there's no way to tell reliably what will happen then. To tell the truth, both of us are speculating. I'm saying: here's the trend, it worked for hundreds of thousands of years. Let's extrapolate this trend and assume it will not change in the future. And then I make my conclusions. On the other hand, you make a leap to the unknown and say a totally new thing will happen and people would cooperate on the new level unimaginable in the entire previous history. Whose speculation is more reliable? We would never know. Predicting the future had never paid off.  ::   
I think that in the observable future the capitalism had not rotten to the point it had exhausted itself as a political organization of the society. Right now, there seem to be more capital than there are actually assets, meaning the entire humanity is basically in debt. That is because the humanity had capitalized on the expectations of the future profit. If the future profit does not turn out, it is going to be a global financial catastrophe. Very desirable for the communists and, perhaps, the anarchists. However, I would respectfully disagree with those who would insist that is inevitable. So far, the financial world had dealt with that issue by simply expanding the market. They cherish the 'innovation' and praise the 'education' so people could make up more and more ways to create more and more comfort in different ways. The next big market is in the outer space. In addition to the cheap energy [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_mining]: 
"_At 1997 prices, a relatively small metallic asteroid with a diameter of  1.6 km (0.99 mi) contains more than 20 trillion US dollars worth of  industrial and precious metals.[1][2] In fact, all the gold, cobalt, iron, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, osmium, palladium, platinum, rhenium, rhodium, ruthenium, and tungsten  that we now mine from the Earth's crust, and that are essential for  economic and technological progress, came originally from the rain of  asteroids that hit the Earth after the crust cooled._" 
In the observable future, the expansion of the humanity to space should create many new markets.  
But, even then, I do not believe a person on welfare would be content with him living in a 3,000 cubic feet of a house, eating five steaks a day, and driving a his personal jet. He would look up at the others who live in their private asteroid, drive a new 5-Mach robotic flyer, eat delicious fruit which only grows in the space greenhouses, etc.

----------


## Crocodile

> I propose that a super computer programmed with the best wealth  distribution algorithms, as well as formulas for the practical  application of communism might be able to solve all these problems Croc!

 Can you divide 11 chairs among 7 people without a super computer?  ::

----------


## Hanna

> Can you divide 11 chairs among 7 people without a super computer?

 Of course, but I couldn't keep every distribution I ever made in my head and treat everyone fairly. But the computer could keep track on exactly what everyone got. The computer would work out that the people who got no chair get a particularly nice bed instead, or something. Or let you swap your allocation of vodka for a new laptop.  
I am beginning to like the idea with the "fair" super computer.

----------


## Crocodile

> Of course, but I couldn't keep every distribution I ever made in my head and treat everyone fairly. But the computer could keep track on exactly what everyone got. The computer would work out that the people who got no chair get a particularly nice bed instead, or something. Or let you swap your allocation of vodka for a new laptop.  
> I am beginning to like the idea with the "fair" super computer.

 Is that what the Communism is about in your opinion? I need clothes, but I'm given the nails instead? If yes, then the USSR had implemented the Communism successfully.  ::

----------


## Crocodile

> Oh well, but you bloody capitalists at the same time fill his mind with images of supercars, diamonds and opulent palaces by the seaside. You tempt people, you desire his soul in exchange for devil's gold. You turn him into a consumption machine. That's the difference.

 The difference between what and what?  ::    

> You impress him with false values ridiculing much more important virtues.

 Ok, so let's talk about the values a bit. The last time I checked on the Communist manifesto they said [:]File Not Found "_Abolition [Aufhebung] of the family. [...] The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital._" 
I would say a virtue of "social justice" is much more false than the family values. What do you say? There are also: "_But you Communists would introduce community of women._"    

> Capitalists say - everything's possible, you just need to work very hard and you'll be rich and successful. THAT'S BULL$HIT, you know.

 Well, not everything is possible. I think you might have perceived the capitalism at some point in some brilliant colours and then got disillusioned, hence the anger in your words. However, the capitalism is nothing more than the declaration of the private property. And the communism is nothing more than the abolition of the private property. That is all to it, really. Those capitalists which tempt the consumers with new cars, are not devils which are trying to get souls, they are just trying to sell it to you. It is your personal responsibility not to buy it if you don't have money.

----------


## Hanna

> Is that what the Communism is about in your opinion? I need clothes, but I'm given the nails instead? If yes, then the USSR had implemented the Communism successfully.

 No I am talking about swapping around on such massive scale that everyone ends up happy. 
The computer would also quickly be able to identify if there is something which lots of people want which there is not enough of, or if there is something produced which in fact nobody wants. And since the computer is not a greedy capitalist, it would not continue production of endless unhealthy junk just because there was a demand for it.  
For example, A wants a cashmere jumper but hate eggs. B wants a bicycle but not a kitchen table. C wants eggs but not a bicycle. D wants a kitchen table but not a cashmere jumper. 
Then apply that on a national scale and give everyone a certain allowance of everything, or a certain equal amounts of points, the swap around until everyone is happy.  
Humans couldn't do this - it's too complicated. But a super computer could carry on until everyone got what they wanted or very close. It could also identify what gaps there were, and prevent cheating...  *I think I have invented a new ideology! "COMPUNISM"*  ::   _So how about it Croc, you write the code and I manage the project, whaddya say?_

----------


## Doomer

> No I am talking about swapping around on such massive scale that everyone ends up happy.

 USSR had this implemented. It was called Госплан. Everything was planned - Gosplan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
But it relied on humans and humans make mistakes. Problems with logistics (intentional and not) created deficit - you have had enough nails inside the whole country but some regions have had too many nails and some haven't had enough

----------


## it-ogo

> *I think I have invented a new ideology! "COMPUNISM"*

 448px-Download_communism.jpg

----------


## Crocodile

> *I think I have invented a new ideology! "COMPUNISM"*   _So how about it Croc, you write the code and I manage the project, whaddya say?_

 Well, that is theoretically possible, however what do you do if you have the matching scores? How would you resolve the conflicts in that case? What if after the super-extra-complex calculations you have 3 chairs to divide among 7 people? How would you prefer one over the other? That would be SOCIAL INJUSTICE!1111111111111111111111111111111111111111  11111111  ::  
If you have a shortage - that's not the communism, but if you have an extra, who would get it? 
Seriously though, I think there are lots of things to dispute about above the 'basic needs', enough to create the injustice. The notion of the 'abilities' vs 'needs' is fundamentally controversial. I need that specific woman, but my abilities are not enough to get her. And so on... 
The terms 'abilities' and 'needs' were coined at the time when that was still the major concern of the industrialized society. Now, it's apparent those terms have lost their initial meaning. For example, now Ramil wants to save souls from the capitalist BUL$$$IT. What does it have to do with 'needs'? If the goal is to satisfy the needs, why would the turning a person into a consumption machine is a concern all of a sudden? There's nothing in the Communist Party Manifesto that says being the consumption machine is bad or something like that.

----------


## Hanna

Maybe Gosplan would have worked if it had had great hardware and 1000 of the sharpest analysts and programmers working on continuously refining it?

----------


## Ramil

> The difference between what and what?

 Between your point and mine.   

> Ok, so let's talk about the values a bit. The last time I checked on the Communist manifesto they said [:]File Not Found "_Abolition [Aufhebung] of the family. [...] The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital._"

 I wonder why you are bringing it up. I wrote that 'communism is possible but not in the way Marx or Lenin saw it'. The basic principle still remains.
Let's speak of value. What is value? Comfort? Things that might get our lives better? OK, but what IS 'better'? These things depend on how we think of this world. And what determines the way how we think? Being determines consciousness. What is good and what is bad? Крошка сын к отцу пришел... 
Let's remember the Moral code of the Builder of Communism - is it so bad? What, the cult of money and consumption is better than that?
Having more money and a better car is actually nothing compared to the number of saved lives by a surgeon, but who cares about it these days? Really? Moral comfort is sometimes more valuable than the comfort of your butt... 
No, I think I'm wasting my time here...  ::    

> Well, not everything is possible.

 Now, I'm really crushed.  ::  'Working hard' doesn't get me a Maserati?   

> I think you might have perceived the capitalism at some point in some brilliant colours and then got disillusioned, hence the anger in your words.

 Hardly that. I've never been all that taken by the capitalism, even though I'd happenned to visit Western Germany 2 years before the Berlin Wall fell. I always thought that Communism is a far better economical, political and social system than capitalism. If I ever was disillusioned that was rather in my countrymen who failed and surrendered. I've never felt any sympaties for capitalism. (Must be some heavy communistic brainwashing I've undergone in my childhood)  ::     

> However, the capitalism is nothing more than the declaration of the private property.

 And? Is that good?   

> And the communism is nothing more than the abolition of the private property.

 Is that bad?   

> That is all to it, really. Those capitalists which tempt the consumers with new cars, are not devils which are trying to get souls, they are just trying to sell it to you.

 But why are they trying to sell it to me? To feel more butt-comfort?  ::    

> It is your personal responsibility not to buy it if you don't have money.

 Oooookay. Responsibility. So, when the communists were saying 'It's a personal responsibility of every Soviet citizen to postpone his/her own interests to the public welfare' the capitalists were saying 'Lolwut? No sane man will do that, that's impossible, people are weak...' But when we spoke about temptation to spend more than you can afford in order to look (not to be) more successful (according to the devil's advertisements) the capitalists say 'I's his/her personal responsibility'. These guys are not being very consitent, really.  ::

----------


## Crocodile

> Maybe Gosplan would have worked if it had had great hardware and 1000 of the sharpest analysts and programmers working on continuously refining it?

 And why the market economy worked fine without the sharpest analysts and programmers working on it and still produced good results?  ::  
Just to keep in mind, if you parasite on the capitalist economy in the west, you get welfare and clash your hands in envy, but if you tried to parasite on the communist economy in the USSR, you had breached the law (_Статья_ 209 _УК_ РСФСР) and could be imprisoned.

----------


## Ramil

> If you have a shortage - that's not the communism, but if you have an extra, who would get it?

 Again, that's not an effective way of distributing wealth. The extra chairs will be immediately taken into a decomposition plant and the matter which constituted the extra chairs will be converted back to energy which in its turn will be converted back to a couple of glasses of martini for two of them who need some right now and the rest will be stored for future use.

----------


## Crocodile

> Moral comfort is sometimes more valuable than comfort of your butt... No, I think I'm wasting my time here...

 Both types of comfort are subjective.   

> Now, I'm really crushed.  'Working hard' doesn't get me a Maserati?

 No it won't. As much as killing 20 kulaks does not bring about the social justice for you.   

> And? Is that good? Is that bad?

 It's good to some people and bad to others.   

> But why are they trying to sell it to me? To feel more butt-comfort?

 I was trying to convey my opinion.    

> Oooookay. Responsibility. So, when the communists were saying 'It's a personal responsibility of every Soviet citizen to postpone his/her own interests to the public welfare' the capitalists were saying 'Lolwut? No sane man will do that, that's impossible, people are weak...' But when we spoke about temptation to spend more than you can afford in order to look (not to be) more successful (according to the devil's advertisements) the capitalists say 'I's his/her personal responsibility'. These guys are not being very consitent, really.

 Yes, there are double standards and a lie in every propaganda. And Maseratis are not as good as they are advertized either.  ::

----------


## Ramil

> Both types of comfort are subjective.

 Yes, but what kind of comfort will dominate people when all types of 'butt-comfort' are satisfied?   

> It's good to some people and bad to others.

 This correlates with my previous quesiton. What good will be in private property when ALL your needs can be satisfied here and now. Will private property be so important to you? Even if it will - well, you can get a ton of gold and put a sign 'Private property' on it. Other people will just think you're a weirdo of sorts and pass you by.
They won't ENVY you and envy is the primary driving force for the desire to posess things.    

> I was trying to convey my opinion.

 Let me answer this question for you - they try to sell me a car because they want my money to buy them something else (maybe even also a car  :: ). Capitalism states that you are better if you posess more and consume more. But think - does a greater level of consumption really make you better?   

> Yes, there are double standards and a lie in every propaganda. And Maseratis are not as good as they are advertized either.

 What? Maseratis are not good? (shoked) How that may be? They cost so much money! They must be good! 
Your difficulties with communism lie not in the theory, but in the sad 'practice' you wintessed back in USSR. USSR had its faults, and many of them, but this doesn't automatically mean that the theory itself is bad.

----------


## heartfelty

"I will teach you profitable acts"-God (Bible). I am not using His Name in vain. It is written in the Word of God.

----------


## Hanna

> "I will teach you profitable acts"-God (Bible).

 Where in the Bible is this allegedly from? It is completely unfamiliar to me.  
The word "profitable" has many meanings. Creating profit is just one of them. I believe that when the KJV version uses that expression it simply means "beneficial" or "good".

----------


## heartfelty

I forgot where in the Bible did I saw it. But I really saw and read it. The exact words. ...(Deleted.L.)

----------


## Hanna

It's not in the Bible and you are talking absolute nonsensical rubbish as usual!

----------


## Doomer

> Maybe Gosplan would have worked if it had had great hardware and 1000 of the sharpest analysts and programmers working on continuously refining it?

 The problem is that most of the people don't want to live equally
They want to live better and eventually better than others
Deficit wasn't 100% fault of the bad planning, sometimes it was created intentionally by people who can influence the production
If one can control deficit of something one gets power and using this power one can make one's life better 
read this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow&#39;...archy_of_needs
Communism cannot be built if most of the people in society haven't reached the top of the pyramid

----------


## Crocodile

> Yes, but what kind of comfort will dominate people when all types of 'butt-comfort' are satisfied?

 Even today the 'butt-comfort' is not the only comfort that is being consumed. In the early 21st century we have much less people in the production business and more people in the service business. So, to extrapolate that, if we have technologies to produce the goods very cheap by only 1% of the population, then the rest 89% would be doing services (let's leave 10% for the unemployed).  
Overall, I think the idea of the most of the population parasiting on the automated society somewhat relates to the sentiments of the early era of the industrialization - that the automation would make people unemployed. People would just shift focus.   

> What good will be in private property when ALL your needs can be satisfied here and now. Will private property be so important to you?

 The sense of ownership [presently] creates motivation for the people to act. The entire society of the parasites does not look very attractive to me. Unless, of course, some religion or another ideology, or fear would create the motivation in the future. Perhaps, there might be other incentives: if you're doing something useful, we will upgrade your body to be stronger and healthier, and if you don't - you will live as usual, only some 75-95 years. Every day of work useful for the society would give you an extra day of your life. I cannot rule those possibilities out. Like you said, I know nothing about that distant future. But, right now, I don't think the capitalization on the sense of ownership is the worst of all options.   

> Even if it will - well, you can get a ton of gold and put a sign 'Private property' on it. Other people will just think you're a weirdo of sorts and pass you by. They won't ENVY you and envy is the primary driving force for the desire to posess things.

 I respectfully disagree. First, your future society satisfies 100% all basic needs, remember? And what about the extra? If you live in a small hut and have a free food, and at the same time Hanna lives in the 5,000 square feet penthouse with the walls covered by the paintings of the old Italian masters, and eats delicious fruits, that would create an envy and the desire to possess the same thing that Hanna has. And you can't really replicate the old Italian paintings (unless you're fine with the reproductions, which you probably aren't).  ::  There would ALWAYS be things which exist in limited quantities, so who would get them? The possession of those items would create envy. If you and I live under the exact same conditions, but you also have a rare mineral from the distant planet, you would invite Hanna over to show it to her, and I won't be able to do that. Hanna will find it more interesting and will go to your hut and not to mine. And then, you can start talking about things and God knows what happens next. Won't that make me wish I had a better mineral so Hanna would prefer to visit me first? Of course, it will.  ::    

> Let me answer this question for you - they try to sell me a car because they want my money to buy them something else (maybe even also a car ). Capitalism states that you are better if you posess more and consume more. But think - does a greater level of consumption really make you better?

 What is better and what is worse? That is purely subjective. Does the better knowledge of the Sun make you better? Does writing poems make you better? Does taking drugs make you better? Does marrying a beautiful, smart, and devoted woman make you better? Does donating a million dollars to charity make you better? What is better? And why is it better to be better?   

> What? Maseratis are not good? (shoked) How that may be? They cost so much money! They must be good!

 There's something between you and the money.  ::  The money is only a temporary mutually agreed measurement for a value which is purely subjective to you. The advertisement for Maserati is trying to create a value for the customers by making the customers believe those cars are panty-droppers. For the transportation purposes, those cars are just cars, with their pros and cons. For example: Maserati recall: The last recall you will need   

> Your difficulties with communism lie not in the theory, but in the sad 'practice' you wintessed back in USSR. USSR had its faults, and many of them, but this doesn't automatically mean that the theory itself is bad.

 My difficulties with communism are caused by the fact that it took 100 years and LOTS of lives to realize you can't introduce communism now in any country. So, on the onset, the communists promised the communism in 10 years, then in 20, then by 1980, then by 2000 and now in the distant future. All that is just BULL$$IT, using your expression. The communism postulates the cooperation and that would replace the competition. The life on our planet had been competitive since the onset, the competition was one of the major drives of the evolution of life. The cooperation exists as long as its more beneficial than the competition. You have to prove that the satisfaction of the basic needs is more beneficial for all individuals than being a consumption machine. The postulation of the private property does not prohibit some people to combine their property and have the common property in their circle. But the postulation of the common property prohibits the existence of the private property inevitably causing some people wanting to leave the system. As long as the communism is mandatory, it will have people flee the system or cause mass-prosecutions. That's what the practice of the 20th century demonstrates. You introduce the communism, and you inevitably have people fleeing your country. And then, you should prohibit the people from leaving otherwise you end up with a country with no people. The rest follows.

----------


## Hanna

Maybe the solution is to set up a Communist nation somewhere and have people choose to join the "commune". 
Then they would know what they were signing up for. Then if they do not pull their weight, they can be ejected 
I think kibbutzim in Israel work in that way.That is a form of Communism I think. Inside of the kibbutz they don't use money, they just go and collect the stuff that they need. Everybody has a similar house, regardless of their position. They share everything that can be shared.  
One question that interests me: Say I am a poor but clever person who is born in a backwards village deep in rural Russia and I want to study at a good university and get a nice job in a pleasant city: Would I have better chances of achieving this in the Soviet times, or today ---  or is it not comparable?

----------


## Crocodile

> Maybe the solution is to set up a Communist nation somewhere and have people choose to join the "commune". 
> Then they would know what they were signing up for. Then if they do not pull their weight, they can be ejected

 That option is totally fine by me. And I think communes like that existed throughout the centuries. Think monasteries, etc. What usually happens with those communities is that there's division of the responsibilities. The entire community cannot participate in each and every decision, so the heads of the community are elected to run the community, and then the heads would select the lower level aides, which would select their aides, etc. In the end, you get a typical power pyramid. Similar assets, but different power.   

> I think kibbutzim in Israel work in that way.That is a form of Communism I think. Inside of the kibbutz they don't use money, they just go and collect the stuff that they need. Everybody has a similar house, regardless of their position. They share everything that can be shared.

 Haha! Yes, they do. But, the kibutzim hire the workers to do the job they don't want to do. In a very capitalist way in the outer market. Does that makes the kibutz members 'better persons'?  ::  And also kibutzim regularly get subsidies from the Israeli government. Meaning, the kibutzim are, in part, parasite on the capitalist economy. Does that make them 'better people'?  ::

----------


## Crocodile

> The extra chairs will be immediately taken into a decomposition plant and the matter which constituted the extra chairs will be converted back to energy which in its turn will be converted back to a couple of glasses of martini for two of them who need some right now and the rest will be stored for future use.

 LOL  _"Карандышев (вставая). О, не раскайтесь! (Кладет руку за борт  сюртука.) Вы должны быть моей. 
Лариса. Чьей ни быть, но не вашей. 
Карандышев (запальчиво). Не моей? 
Лариса. Никогда! 
Карандышев.  Так  не  доставайся  ж  ты  никому!  (Стреляет  в  нее  из пистолета.) 
Лариса (хватаясь за грудь). Ах! Благодарю вас! (Опускается на стул.)"_

----------


## nulle

But anyway - who will invent new things?
Who will innovate existing?
If they will not get any benefits for their hard work - why bother?
If they will get benefits - then sooner or later - everyone will not be equal anymore. 
I think that USSR was lagging behind the West partially because its inventors/scientists/etc. did not get fair compensation for their work.
For example Mikhail Kalashnikov - his invention is produced in massive quantities - yet - he does not have any benefit from that.

----------


## Doomer

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

 because they care  :: 
Communism won't work for mere mortals people who don't give a damn

----------


## Crocodile

> I think that USSR was lagging behind the West partially because its inventors/scientists/etc. did not get fair compensation for their work.
> For example Mikhail Kalashnikov - his invention is produced in massive quantities - yet - he does not have any benefit from that.

 I'm not sure the USSR was lagging behind the West. It was lagging behind in certain things and was a way ahead in the others. The scientists were compensated worse than their counterparts in the West, however adequately. The problem was not the compensation, but the centralization and as a result the bureaucratization of everything that resisted any innovations. Each bureaucrat had only to report the success up the ladder, so they couldn't take risks. As a result, it was more beneficial for the bureaucracy which led the country to sell raw materials to maintain the best spy organization in the world which would steal and buy new technologies from the West and then copy them and promote to production than to promote the local inventions. The local inventions were reported up the ladder, but rarely experienced practical implementation. That caused the inevitable lag between the invention in the west, trial and error in the west, mass production in the west, success in the west, and ONLY THEN copy in the USSR, trial and error in the USSR, and mass production in the USSR. All that took years. Hence the lag. By the 80s the Soviet-manufactured calculators were displaying the magic word ЕГГОГ which meant nothing in Russian, but everybody knew it meant an error. That situation caused enormous frustration among the scientific community in the USSR hurting the motivation.

----------


## nulle

Interesting then - how will new inventions appear on the "market" under communism?
I capitalism it is quite simple - if I have made it - I can go and sell it myself either through a retailer/reseller/publisher, garage sale, ebay, whatever and get $$$ in return.
And then I can see if there is a demand for my product - maybe I will produce more.
Unlike Soviet Union which sometimes produced something way more than neccessary, and sometimes not enough.

----------


## Marcus

Now very few things are invented and introduced in Russia despite the capitalism. Or probably because of.

----------


## Crocodile

> Now very few things are invented and introduced in Russia despite the capitalism. Or probably because of.

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

----------


## 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?  
Most of the major Western powers got rich through imperialism, colonialism or slavery. Through exploiting peasants, workers and even child labourers. 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.  
The USSR did not do any of that, really, at least not on a big scale, or outside its own borders. 
So with less exploitation they achieved less wealth. Plus, the USSR "wasted" a lot of money that could have been spent on consumer comfort on supporting other socialist countries, on the arms race etc.  
But it doesn't seem like an appalling standard of living, just not comparable to the richest Western countries at the time.  
I visited both the USSR and Spain closely following each other in the mid 1980s when I was a kid. I remember thinking that the Soviets lived better than the most people in Spain. Just as a comparison, my own reflection, I have no stats to support that. Spain at the time had just come out of being a right wing dictatorship under Franco.  
The USSR had many amazing achievements and inventions, just not in the area of consumer products.

----------


## Eric C.

Ramil, your fantastic system sounds good to me, the only problem I've seen so far is, we gotta invent an immortality pill to live till that day when we can see it happen. Anyway, the system where you can get any amount of anything you want, and where you can think in whatever way and you won't be persecuted for that seems to be the best solution humanity could ever think of. But would you mind telling me what the USSR system had to do in common with yours? That was just a regular totalitarian dictatorship, where people's needs were beneath the "state needs" - in fact the leaders' needs + there was a developed infrastructure that let the leaders have infinite control over people's minds and deeds. But nothing unusual, really, we all know what such systems look like, Orwell was able to see that over 60 years ago. 
So, my point is, Ramil's system is the best to run as soon as it's able to run. From what can work now, capitalism is one of the best solutions, and the USSR system was one of the worst.

----------


## Doomer

> 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  ::

----------


## Crocodile

> 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.   

> 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.   

> 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.    

> 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.

----------


## Hanna

> 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.

----------


## Marcus

> 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.

----------


## Eric C.

> 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.  ::

----------


## Eric C.

> 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)

----------


## Hanna

> 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.

----------


## nulle

> 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.

----------


## Crocodile

> 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

----------


## nulle

> 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?

----------


## Doomer

> 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  ::

----------


## mishau_

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.

----------


## 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...

----------


## Marcus

> 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?

----------


## mishau_

> 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.

----------


## Hanna

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.

----------


## Crocodile

> (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?

----------


## Hanna

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.

----------


## Crocodile

> 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.  ::

----------


## Deborski

> 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.

----------


## Doomer

> 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  ::

----------


## Eric C.

> 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.

----------


## Hanna

> 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.    

> 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.    Korea (depending on your outlook - but that is a different discussion)Vietnam.LaosCambodiaDominican RepublicGranadaHaitiPanamaIraq v1AfghanistanIraq v2Libya  
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!

----------


## Marcus

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

 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.

----------


## 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.

----------


## Eric C.

> 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? =)

----------


## xdns

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

----------


## 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. 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...

----------


## Ramil

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

 People will.   

> 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.

----------


## Eric C.

> 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.

----------


## Deborski

402564_3363318292082_1542848808_32999330_515255061_n.jpg

----------


## Eric C.

> 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.

----------


## Doomer

> 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

----------


## mishau_

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

----------


## nulle

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...

----------


## CoffeeCup

> 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?

----------


## Hanna

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.*

----------


## Marcus

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.

----------


## Marcus

> 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.

----------


## Crocodile

> [...]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.    

> 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?

----------


## Marcus

> Can anybody else see a parallel with 9/11?

 I can. 

> 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.

 Ha-ha-ha-ha.  

> 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.

 Nonsense.

----------


## Crocodile

> Ha-ha-ha-ha. Nonsense.

 That's very informative.  ::

----------


## Marcus

В Западной Европе после войны были посажены американские марионетки, все мало-мальски независимые правители, как де Голль, хотели от американцев избавиться. Народ там во многом был за коммунистов и никакую НАТО не поддерживал.
Все знали, что СССР новую войну не начнет, а Америка вообще была неуязвима, сейчас - тем более. Все американские планы были исключительно наступательными.

----------


## Crocodile

> В Западной Европе после войны были посажены американские марионетки, все мало-мальски независимые правители, как де Голль, хотели от американцев избавиться. Народ там во многом был за коммунистов и никакую НАТО не поддерживал.

 Alright, so first, please cite me saying that "the people of Western Europe were crying to save it from the USSR". I said "Western Europe was crying to save it from the USSR" and when we mention a country what we mean is the government in that country, i.e. very specific people. Some people liked the USSR, others liked the US. There is no way to issue a blanket statement saying anything about people in Western Europe in general. So, as a result of Yalta conference, the world was divided between the powers and obviously those politicians which allied with the designated power of their region got the support and others met the resistance. And those governments expressed and formed the "national opinion". And all those who serves in the military and sacrifice their lives 'for their countries' is actually serving the plans of the specific politicians with their limited understanding of what needs to be done. So, I'm not sure what you were laughing at.   

> Все знали, что СССР новую войну не начнет

 That's interesting. The USSR had the mightiest ground army in the world and the best weapon in the world of the time and you're saying everybody knew the USSR will not start another war in 5-10 years? After it had successfully absorbed the entire Eastern Europe and crushed the entire Kwantung Army 'liberating' huge territories in a week? That statement _is_ laughable.    

> а Америка вообще была неуязвима

 Then why such small Japan attacked the US in 1942? Was the US less invincible then? Perhaps, Japan had more military strength in 1942 than the USSR in 1945?   

> сейчас - тем более.

 That's entirely another topic. All I'm saying - put yourself in the shoes of a NATO general. That general could be born in Canada, Australia, etc.   

> Все американские планы были исключительно наступательными.

 Ha-ha-ha. All military plans of a country which possess nuclear weapon are aggressive. No exceptions. The nuclear weapon in military service ensures the defense from any military intervention. Instead of making the defensive plans any nuclear country has plans for mitigating the risks of the nuclear weapon being destroyed by an enemy. And one of the strategic solutions is to diversify the locations and the methods of delivery. There are strategic missiles in the nuclear silos and the whole tactics of attack and defense of the silos, there are mobile nuclear units, there are nuclear submarines, aircraft, etc. If the enemy is successful in neutralizing the nuclear silos, it would be attacked by the nuclear bombs deployed from the aircraft launched from three or four military bases nearby. And it's good to have more bases, if some of them are destroyed, there would be others which would be able to launch the nuclear assault. The diversification in that case is a key for the strategic planning. If you find that nonsense, I think you should at least say what are the alternatives.

----------


## Marcus

Флота у Советского Союза не было, авиация была слабее американской, и сам он был разорен войной.

----------


## Crocodile

> Флота у Советского Союза не было, авиация была слабее американской, и сам он был разорен войной.

 Ok, so let me once more repeat what I said and what has caused so much laughter from your side: "_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._" The Western Europe was more afraid of the USSR than the US. It was actually Western Europe which catalyzed the Cold War. That process ultimately culminated in the Berlin Crisis. But, then the Caribbean Crisis broke out which made the US become more and more afraid for its own security.

----------


## Marcus

> It was actually Western Europe which catalyzed the Cold War

 Ничего Западная Европа не делала. Холодная война началась из-за желания США подчинить себе мир и убрать единственного, кто этому мешает. Прошло 40 лет, прежде чем мешающий понял, чего от него хотят.

----------


## Crocodile

> Ничего Западная Европа не делала. Холодная война началась из-за желания США подчинить себе мир и убрать единственного, кто этому мешает. Прошло 40 лет, прежде чем мешающий понял, чего от него хотят.

 Would you be able to provide some logical and/or factual support to what you just said? Obviously, you know how the propaganda works...

----------


## Doomer

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

 They weren't in WWI by the time of occurrence of the communistic ideas in Europe
Internal security fixed the problem, obviously

----------


## Crocodile

> At least not in a way Lenin, Stalin & Co. did.

 I think what Lenin and Stalin used to do is probably not the worst of all possible scenarios. We know there were lots of people who resisted the collectivization of the property and the communists had to prosecute those people. But, how many people would the communists have to prosecute if they would every try to enforce other things stated in the Communist Party Manifesto, for example "the community of wives?"

----------


## BappaBa

> if they would every try to enforce other things stated in the Communist Party Manifesto, for example "the community of wives?"

 А если внимательно прочитать?  

> Но вы, коммунисты, хотите ввести общность жен, - кричит нам хором вся буржуазия. 
>      Буржуа смотрит на свою жену как на простое орудие производства. Он слышит, что орудия производства предполагается предоставить в общее пользование, и, конечно, не может отрешиться от мысли, что и женщин постигнет та же участь. Он даже и не подозревает, что речь идет как раз об устранении такого положения женщины, когда она является простым орудием производства. Впрочем, нет ничего смешнее высокоморального ужаса наших буржуа по поводу мнимой официальной общности жен у коммунистов. Коммунистам нет надобности вводить общность жен, она существовала почти всегда. Наши буржуа, не довольствуясь тем, что в их распоряжении находятся жены и дочери их рабочих, не говоря уже об официальной проституции, видят особое наслаждение в том, чтобы соблазнять жен друг у друга.
> Буржуазный брак является в действительности общностью жен. Коммунистам можно было бы сделать упрек разве лишь в том, будто они хотят ввести вместо лицемерно-прикрытой общности жен официальную, открытую. Но ведь само собой разумеется, что с уничтожением нынешних производственных отношений исчезнет и вытекающая из них общность жен, т. е. официальная и неофициальная проституция.

----------


## it-ogo

> 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?

----------


## Eric C.

> 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.

----------


## Eric C.

> Actually, USA provides help to North Korea each year.

 Would you care to provide any sort of evidence?

----------


## aleksa_v

Sorry, I'm not sure, but in my opinion, capitalism is not idealistic system to. Because it concentrate biggest part of capital in hands of a few people, multibillionaires. It give them unlimited power from rest people and create a different possibility between poor and rich. 
Communism proposed same possibility for everyone. Proposal to transfer private property the country. It means to share with every inhabitant. It humanistic, but not realistic. Because few rich people in the world understand how its important: freedom. equality. brotherhood.
I'm sorry for gramma mistakes.

----------


## Doomer

> 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

----------


## it-ogo

> 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.

----------


## Doomer

> 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

----------


## it-ogo

> 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?

----------


## Hanna

> 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.

----------


## Crocodile

> 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.  ::

----------


## Crocodile

> 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...)

----------


## Crocodile

> 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.

----------


## Marcus

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

----------


## Crocodile

> 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.

----------


## Ramil

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.

----------


## Crocodile

> 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.  ::

----------


## it-ogo

> ...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.

----------


## Eric C.

> 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.

----------


## Ramil

> 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'.

----------


## Ramil

> 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.

----------


## Crocodile

> 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.

----------


## Crocodile

> 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.

----------


## Ramil

> 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...  ::

----------


## Crocodile

> 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.  ::

----------


## Ramil

> 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   

> 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.

----------


## it-ogo

> 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.

----------


## Eric C.

> 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?

----------


## Hanna

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.

----------


## Ramil

> 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?

----------


## Doomer

> I mea, since there were actual elections in the USSR as far as I am aware.

 That's interesting
Where did you find this info, Hanna?

----------


## it-ogo

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

  All of them. Any empire treated all conquered peoples as a part of it (even if second-class part) and took care as it can. It was the "white man's burden".

----------


## Marcus

> 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.

 At the end, certainly not. It considered itself a real democracy. Since 1936 everyone had equal rights, including the "former".

----------


## it-ogo

> 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.

 Well, they claimed that perfect society should not contain exploiter class at all. All people should be "the proletariat, the peasantry and the working intelligentsia" (which form one class) and there are no place to parasite classes in our society. In the time of Lenin-Stalin they say that if there are some parasite people, they should be caught and reforged into "the proletariat etc..." in special camps or killed if they don't want to be reforged. Later it was said that reforging is mainly succeeded and now very few remaining parasites will be reforged by themselves as a natural historical process. 
 So it was positioned as a dictatorship of everybody, not of some class or separate persons. The same propaganda as of democracy TM but in other words.

----------


## Hanna

> That's interesting
> Where did you find this info, Hanna?

 I don't know, I just remember hearing, back in those days that there WERE elections in Eastern Europe, just some restrictions as to what people could vote for. I.e. different shades of red, probably (???) And hearing about it on the news in my childhood. I.e. "In elections in the DDR, votes have been counted and 98% voted for the Communist party and Erich Honecker, the remainder voted for Socialist workers party"
And thinking - what is the point of having elections under such circumstances? 
No doubt there were many people who DID believe in communism and were quite happy to vote for it. But there must have been plenty of people who preferred to vote for something else and considered the who thing silly and insulting.

----------


## Hanna

> ... or US can be quietly preparing for a global war   
> But Crodocile, dear, US really wants to control the entine world , and unfortunately Russia is not an obstacle any more.

 Well I hope for a comeback by Russia. Maybe in a decade or so, if Russia can take control over some of the problems it's still dealing with.  
I don't by any means idolize Russia or see it as perfect in any way. It could turn evil... 
But at the moment I like it better than the USA because it is just more honest and straightforward. No BS about promoting democracy and freedom by doing the opposite, and no excessive meddling in other countries' business. Plus Russians in general don't think they are Gods gift to the world and always right about everything. And it's not hard to like practically any country better than China. So I support Russia as the underdog superpower!
But it has a lot of work to do to sort itself out!  
If the EU has some kind of miracle transformation and everyone learns to work together, and the EU stops driving eveyrone crazy with bureacracy and irritating foreign policy... then I'd support the EU of course.

----------


## Crocodile

Not sure how it was in the DDR, but in Moscow it was only one candidate people had to vote for. The info about the candidate was publicly available, but there was no choice. Then people had performed their "civic duty" to vote for that candidate and so the elections were done. The year 1986 (if I remember correctly)  was the first year there were several candidates (still from the Communist Party, of course), so people had a choice. The election was heatly debated among the old ladies who sat near the building entrance... In either case, the elections were actually to the municipal division of the Communist Party or the delegates to the next caucus of the Communist Party, so they could unanimously elect higher leaders. There was no other party and there were no other elections held for the public. Why to bother with multiple parties? The Communist Party was the people's party, so it represented the desires and wishes of the ordinary people. You got the picture.  ::

----------


## Marcus

> Maybe in a decade or so, if Russia can take control over some of the problems it's still dealing with

 What problems can prevent you from visiting Russia?  

> And thinking - what is the point of having elections under such circumstances?

 All the elections are like that. You said yourself there is no much sense in elections in the UK.  

> But at the moment I like it better than the USA because it is just more honest and straightforward.

 Russia is not better than the USA, it is probably just weaker.

----------


## Hanna

> What problems can prevent you from visiting Russia?

 
Did you read my travel blog when I was in Belarus and wanted to go to Russia but couldn't get a visa? I had a nice time in .by but it was Russia I wanted to go to! No doubt I could have got a visa if I had applied back in London..but going to Russia is not entirely uncomplicated. I never would have thought it would be such a difficult thing. It's a completely normal thing to get a visa for one foreign country while travelling in another foreign country.    

> All the elections are like that. You said yourself there is no much sense in elections in the UK.

 Yeah, I just can't muster up a lot of enthusiasm for democracy. 
I know it's usually the lesser evil... but like I said - in the UK, there are two almost identical parties. Same thing in the USA. The migration towards a spot somewhere a bit right of the middle of the scale is taking place across Europe. Enough welfare to prevent any kind of revolution or people turning radical. And it's the middle classes that are paying for the welfare state. The small group of really rich people are getting richer, while not paying any more tax, or no tax at all...  And corporations are getting more influence every year, both in the USA and in Europe.     

> Russia is not better than the USA, it is probably just weaker.

 It hasn't really started any wars recently though. And it doesn't do some of the creepy stuff that the USA has started doing since it became the only super power.

----------


## Dogboy182

> Did you read my travel blog when I was in Belarus and wanted to go to Russia but couldn't get a visa? I had a nice time in .by but it was Russia I wanted to go to! No doubt I could have got a visa if I had applied back in London..but going to Russia is not entirely uncomplicated. I never would have thought it would be such a difficult thing. It's a completely normal thing to get a visa for one foreign country while travelling in another foreign country.

 You pretty much always have to be in your native country to apply for a Russian visa, with a few exceptions, that's how it is.

----------


## Hanna

Long time no see Dogboy! yeah, I know I really messed up the Russian visa thing. I really had a very nice time in Belarus, but now I still haven't been to modern Russia despite dying to go! Btw, why don't you share your view on the Bradley Manning thread in this forum? I'd be interested to hear what you think based on what you've said about your background. Hoping you wouldn't just say "shoot him" but something a bit more nuanced.

----------


## Dogboy182

Well, I must confess, I almost had a Russian visa debacle in Ukraine. I thought I had done my homework, but the laws change so often, it was a mess, anyways, I was able to get a Russian visa in Kiev even though I am a US citizen with some help from the very kind locals, but that's a story for another day.  
As far as Bradley Manning, well I don't know. No, I don't think he should be shot. I don't really know enough about the subject to make any real good calls on it, other than I've heard that the Wikileaks people themselves say that he had nothing to do with it, and how such a low ranking member of the army could have so much access to classified material is beyond me. 
In short... I don't know! If he is guilty, then I suppose a sentence for treason could be carried out, on the other hand, I don't know the law pertaining to publishing documents that were classified. Its really an interesting case, and as far as I know, its one of the first of its kind.

----------

