forget_about_your_soft_spot

Wow... terribly sorry to be so late to this debate. Soviet history is one of my deepest interests, as my mother's side hails from the Ukraine, and my grandmother left the Soviet Union during Stalin's purges. The problem with Leninist/ideal Soviet Communism is that it enshrines equal outcome, not equal opportunity. It's right there, in the doctrine. Doesn't even look good on paper. It removes property and wealth from the bourgeoisie and transfers it to the proletariat, or the oppressed masses. The obliteration of classes is not a good thing, because it removes encouragement to achieve or perform beyond bare expectations. Think about your dreams. Do they involve being rich, or at the very least financially solvent? Do those dreams influence your will to attend school, to go to work, etc? Communism removes those dreams of being the best, and says everyone is equal. Which means equal compensation, for both the good workers and the bad workers. For the innovative scientists, and the ones who write junk scientific studies which are easily debunked. Marxist Communism is just as bad, because it's absolutely unattainable, and if implemented would immediately need to revert to a sort of Soviet Communism. Of course, Communism focuses on the oppression of the proletariat. It naively believes that everyone would hold up their end of the bargain and labour intensely to maintain the system. It fails to realise that some people are happy to be half-assed employees who are constantly wobbling on the edge of unemployment. In Soviet Russia, and around the real physical world, it's also tied to brutal police states and heavy corruption. However, I think this has very little to do with the mechanisms and goals of Communism, but rather with the nature of a brutal dictatorship. Communism is an excuse, in these states. Citizens can be executed as traitors to the motherland. Workers may work harder than ever before, but they are doing it for the state, and their hard work will one day be rewarded when the utopian phase of Communism is met, and Socialism fades. The propaganda posters say so. The problem is, by taking away people's motivation for working (the accumulation of wealth, increased status), you take away their will to work. The ideal political and economic system would allow for serious class mobility, providing everyone with the absolute essentials, while encouraging fierce competition in the marketplace. It would also remove some barriers to job advancement, possibly by providing entirely free education, in the form of training and apprenticeships for careers other than the skilled trades. Anyway, now just a quick response to your comments: "Cuba isnt haveing alot of problems being a communist country." http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engamr250082002 Tell that to the dissidents and reporters. Of course, the removal of US sanctions could probably bring a lot more wealth into the country, relieving the country's poverty problems. But it would not necessarily do anything about the authoritarian nature of Fidel's revolution. "Communism=great system, but can only work given 2 near impossibilities: 1) Everyone (that is, 100% of the population) wants the communist system in power, and 2) the leader isn't a megalomaniacal dictator." Well, those are two fairly huge structural flaws... does that not make it a *bad* system? ;) Anyway, #2 is not necessarily true. Khrushchev and Gorbachev were both excellent leaders who genuinely wanted a better life for the citizens of their country, but they were unable to attain it due to the nature of the system. "Utopic"... Not a word. However, upon searching I did find out that there is a Utopia, Texas. I doubt it looks much like the ideal Communist state, though. :angry: "You can't remove money... which is why these systems fail. Things must have value. It is harder for the car dealer to share his wares, then it is for the grocer." More importantly, someone who designs a new and innovative car (hopefully with fewer emissions, better mileage and pleasing aesthetics) is worth more to us collectively than someone who grows cabbage (my apologies to those of you who grow cabbage). To make everyone equal is to discourage new and young designers from working hard, or making things better; for when you are all equal, there can be no advancement beyond your current group of peers. Like it or not, life is competitive. "Consumist"... Also not a word. It's consumerist. "I think that money (along with Racism, Sexism, Religion and Nationalism) is one of the worst concepts created by mankind." Currency is one of the worst systems created by mankind, but it is also conversely one of the best. It is bad because it fuels greed, the negative sort of ambition and a wealth of other destructive behaviour. But it also allows us to trade skills for product, to remove direct transactions and allow abstraction in determination of worth. For example, relying on the previous system of trade, what would the computer engineer have to trade for his meat? What service would a research biologist provide for a head of lettuce? Currency is naturally tied to a technologically driven culture. "secondly under marx the concept of ownership is also under attack "each accoridng to their need"" The problem is that the separation between need/want, given anything beyond bare survival, is an arbitrary one. For example, I know some people who believe that they *need* to have a new car every two years. And who am I to begrudge them for it? They work hard, they have earned their money, and that is how they choose to spend it. So where do you set the demarcation on needs? Communism says that, as we are all equal, everyone gets a new car when #production quota# has been met. Hard workers, slow moving fatasses and everyone else benefits, regardless of amount of effort, training, expertise, etc. So why does Comrade Freeloader (C.F.) who has not helped to meet #production quota# at all get a new car? And if we all get new cars, why am I working so hard? And what if, due to the antics of C.F., the quota is not met? Is he fired? Well, the Leninist Communist state takes care of everyone. So he continues to receive benefits (equal to mine, because we are all equal, after all). Alternatively, and more realistically, he must be punished. But how can he be punished? He does not care for the social good of society, so it is not enough to demonstrate to him how his reduced production is hurting his fellow workers. So you imprison him (which is costly and wasteful, as there is no potential at all for him to work), or you scare him into working by roughing him up. Or you send him to a Gulag. Or you refuse to take care of him, and he starves to death (which would make him unequal, and would make Communism as cruel as Capitalism, theoretically). So the best possible option here is to either throw money at the problem (continued benefits or imprisonment), which would break the system; or brutality (forced labour or murder). "... and dont let the russian perversion of communism ruin the merits of the system" But the problems *are* systematic, and therefore destroy even the noblest invocation of the system. The Russian "perversion" of Communism was in fact a manifestation of what happens when Communism is employed. It cannot be employed in a modern, non-agrarian nation without the accompanying Sovietization. "and originally communism was meant for industrialized nations like england and germany...not a country as messed up as russia...they were messed from the start" East Germany was a fully developed region before WWII, became the "German Democratic Republic" (GDR) after the war, and suffered through nearly 40 years of Soviet Communism. It's actually a very interesting case study of Capitalist systems versus Communism. The GDR had one of the most repressive police forces throughout the USSR, the Stasi. In 1989, when the wall fell, there was 1 informant for every 56 people. The national car (the Trabant) was designed in the late 1950's, and produced for nearly the entire duration. It had a 25hp engine and was made out of a primitive sort of fibre-glass. Buildings destroyed by allied bombings laid in ruins, as they had at the end of the war. The propaganda system was huge and all-consuming, and attempted to convince citizens that the border system was designed to keep West Germans out, not East Germans in. Several rock stars simply disappeared, one presumes for singing about reduced tensions with the west, and a desire to let East Germans be free. Compare this with West Germany, which had all but been rebuilt by the late 60's and was a prosperous, modern state. I've heard the "rough start" argument many times from Marxists, but it simply does not hold water. "FACT: no two democratic countries have ever gone to war with each other. ...Thats all there needs to be said about communism." Neither have two Communist states. Sure, there's been massive internal repression, but there's generally no reason to go to war with someone who does not oppose you. Particularly when you've been united for nearly half a century "fighting" (read: strangling to death) another monolithic threat. "...Except the US and Iraq, but that's arguable." Yes. Mostly because Iraq was not democratic. It was a fascist authoritarian regime. As much as I may have been against the war, and as much as I feel horrible every time I hear the deaths of women and children being casually referred to as "collateral damage", there is no denying that Iraq was not democratic. Anyway, that's about it. Sorry if I have left anything out. I look forward to further discussion, as this topic is certainly a broad and interesting one. Will

Oh dear. You could tell that I was just mocking obsessive Matthew Good fans, right? I don't really have his hair, nor do I want his wife or underwear... BTW, get that friend some help. Will

I want to be just like you. Where do you buy your underwear? And can I borrow your wife for an afternoon? *Sniffs ziplock bag of Matthew Good hair*

Hrm... maybe I need to watch the whole thing. I just saw the part with fake product commercial simulation, with contradictory images and messages (Happy smiling lead singer/"Lies!"). I changed the channel shortly after, because I really fucking hate that band. Will

Does the new Evanescence video (Somebody's Fool..? I think) remind anyone else of the video for "Everything is Automatic", only with much worse musical accompaniment? It's available on their website for viewing, if you haven't seen it: http://www.evanescence.com/ Will

My guess is that Buffalo Seven is a reference to the seven men charged in September 2002, just south of Buffalo, for participation in a terrorist cell. Six were arrested and charged, and one is still at large. http://www.washtimes.com/national/20031209-114319-3699r.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_six http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh...e/profiles.html (Profiles of the members) It's either that, or a reference to a snow storm which occurred in Buffalo in 1977. The latter doesn't make much sense in the context of the song, though. Will

4 Minute Mile, at the moment. It's a live song, so all I have is the memory of it played at a concert, and a shitty quality recording... but it's still my favourite.

Err... thanks, I guess. ;) I'm a bit of a Cold War/USSR/Communism geek, mostly because my grandmother lived in the Ukraine under Stalin's rule. Will

This may sound stupid but I say the threat of American Nuclear weapons may have ended the Cold War. Well, that's essentially what the neo-cons are saying. When Reagan came to power, he essentially vowed to "out-gun" the Soviet Union, the prevailing theory being that the American economy could run the Soviet military complex into economic ruin. With the military complex strongly tied to the civilian state-governed economy in Russia, the notion was that over-arming the Soviet army would run the USSR into ruin. I do not necessarily agree, mind you. I think it was more of a combination of Gorbachev's desire for disarmament, and the natural collapse of a long faltering Soviet economy. Remember, by the time the USSR "fell", it wasn't just a military surrender - there were bread lines and poverty was the rule more than the exception. I'm attempting to determine which story has more truth to it... Come to think of it that would scare any country into submission. Sure, other countries have Nuclear capabilities but hell only the U.S. would kill every single person in a country to win a war. I'm sorry if I offended any of you Americans but you know it's true. You guys promote guns damnit. Well, Gorbachev and his military advisors actually had nerves of steel, from what I've read. We inched towards nuclear destruction many times, as a result of false readings, misunderstanding or just plain shoddy equipment (on both sides, it should be noted). As for the idea that only American's promote guns - well, the policy of escalation only worked because the USSR also built guns, more than they could afford. Assuming you believe the neo-con version of events, anyway. As for the collapse of the Soviet Union, would it have caused any harm to keep them around? It may have. I don't imagine we could have teetered on the edge much longer without some sort of accidental nuclear launch. As much as the Americans like to paint Reagan as a calm, rational leader, and as much as the Russians do the same with Gorbachev, I imagine it was only a matter of time before we experienced the terror of mutually assured destruction. I don't really think communist beliefs condoned in invading or attacking neighbouring countries anyways. As of Reagan's presidency, the USSR consisted of the following countries. Countries marked with an asterix are the ones which chose to join the Soviet Bloc voluntarily: (Inside the USSR) Estonia Latvia Lithuania Belarus Ukraine Georgia Armenia Azerbaijan Kazakhstan Uzbekistan Turkmenistan Tajikistan Kyrgyzstan (Outside the USSR) East Germany Poland Romania Bulgaria Czechoslovakia Hungary ... so, whether or not Marx's original doctrine condoned forceful invasion, the Leninist-Stalinist/Soviet doctrine certainly did. They had a dream, it was a bit idealistic but they had a dream. With the rise of capitalism there are they better off now or before? Are not the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer? Isn't it like that in all the world? Well, yes, but here we have the freedom to complain about wealth concentration. In Soviet Russia, it would have gotten you shot or arrested. I'm no neo-con (in fact, I'm a raging leftist: in America, I'd vote for Kucinich; here, I'll vote for Layton), but the USSR, even well into the 80's, was not exactly a happy place to live. Of course, it could be mentioned that it's virtually the same today, only the concentration of wealth has shifted even *more*, to the ogliarchs which took control of the economy during the process of economic liberalization. Will

Does anyone have any independent opinions on Reagan's responsibility in ending the Cold War? Were his administration's efforts a correlative or cause of the end of the "Evil Empire" (as Reagan himself put it)? Was it a joint effort with Gorbachev? Or did he simply run the Reds to ruin, as the neo-cons would have us believe? I've been wondering for a while, and I figured what with Reagan's death, it would be an opportunity to discuss it; I imagine there will be much media coverage of his presidency over the next few days. As well, do you think ruining the Soviet Union was worth it, even through all the collateral damage in South America, and continued suffering of Russian civilians even under the much deified free-market Capitalist system? Just looking for some opinions... Will