Soviet Union's Possible Success

[Colwyn]

Communism/Socialisism can succeed

Unfortunetly for its true form to be appreciated (remember many of these countries quite often stated that they are communist building societies) you need the whole world to participate.

Because in the long run when you have competing nations vs nations they will use resourses that should be going to the people for defence etc etc.

And then you have both capitalist states and Communist building states in a competion for power where by simple survival needs, they end up exploiting people/enviroment in general.

You can only have one winner unfortunetly the base principle of capitalism is profit and growth which is completely unsustainable.

True Communism, which has at least a principle of providing enough but not so much more may not sound so flash for those living in big homes, many cars etc etc but at the end of the day there just isn't enough resourses in the world for everyone to live like this and while you have this discrepency in resources you will have war and death.

[Saras]

--"True Communism, which has at least a principle of providing enough but not so much more may not sound so flash for those living in big homes, many cars etc etc but at the end of the day there just isn't enough resourses in the world for everyone to live like this"

Of course not; the ones that make the resources available to them (brain, muscle & capital) work harder can afford better homes, more cars etc. Next, please

[Colwyn]

"Of course not; the ones that make the resources available to them (brain, muscle & capital) work harder can afford better homes, more cars etc. Next, please "

- But at what expense to the planet and its people, communism bulding /socialist states did allow various rewards based on education/job/work ethic etc, the SU had a 13 month pay reward for hard working persons and saleries did range as much as X5, it just was defence costs that took some of these obtainable things away.

Not to say that we have reached a state of communism that I'm talking about, my main point is how much wealth can you ALLOW any one person(s) to reach. Give me a X's value you think is fair and you'd probably find we'll all agree.

Bill gates makes say $100,000 a day, does this mean he is working as much as 10,000 people, certainly not. But he is certainly taking it away from 10,000 people mostly mexicans who work 14 hrs days for $1 a hour.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You can only have one winner unfortunetly the base principle of capitalism is profit and growth which is completely unsustainable.

How is growth unsustainable . And you can't have one winner, that is the genius of capitalism... you have people think they can be the one winner, but when you have many thinking this way, they ain't gonna reach the top.

But at what expense to the planet and its people, communism bulding /socialist states did allow various rewards based on education/job/work ethic etc, the SU had a 13 month pay reward for hard working persons and saleries did range as much as X5, it just was defence costs that took some of these obtainable things away.

I don't think the SU is a good example when you are decrying capitalism for what it has done to the planet and the people .

And the defense costs were also a drain to the US. Imagine how much more the US could have done without the large military budget! If every nation became a capitalist democracy, we wouldn't have the war and deaths that you say we wouldn't have under communism either .

Not to say that we have reached a state of communism that I'm talking about, my main point is how much wealth can you ALLOW any one person(s) to reach.

As much as that person can get .

Bill gates makes say $100,000 a day, does this mean he is working as much as 10,000 people, certainly not.

The advances and prosperity and jobs he has brought is worth as much as $10,000 people's work.

But he is certainly taking it away from 10,000 people mostly mexicans who work 14 hrs days for $1 a hour.

How do you figure this? A lot of mexicans don't work for Microsoft .

[Saras]

--"As much as that person can get"

I like your thinking, Imran

[Imran Siddiqui]

I know .

I noticed you were posting... Hell, one vet has to help out another .

[Fidel]

Re: Soviet Union's Possible Success

Originally posted by UberKruX
imagine playing a game of civ in which no AI wanted to talk / trade / anything with you, and you couldn't outright declare war and destroy them.

unfortunately, the communist experiment did not take place in a test tube, but in a hostile environment that tried to destroy the soviet state for 70 years. as a consequence, it developed into a paranoid police-party structure. still, its overall impact was more postive than negative - it defeated hitler and it caused big capital worldwide to reexamine its position and treatment of the labor force.
one may wonder what SU would be like if it were not for the surrounding hostile environment, but if it were a really good idea, it should have overcome that difficulty. perhaps, next time, when germans or some other organized folks try developing communism, it may succeed.

[Fidel]

Originally posted by David Floyd
How is religion against human nature? And love is a part of human nature, I think, therefore monogamy is OK...communism is against human nature because it involves losing your property.

a) sex is part of the human nature, therefore pornography is okay
b) eating is a part of human nature. gluttony is okay too
c) getting drunk is cool. sometimes. it's also a part of human nature
d) people are also aggressive. that's a part of human nature. i mean, they kill each other.

christianity is against human nature. it is hostile towards many things, including those listed above (porn, gluttony, drinking, killing a random punter - um, at least if that is not done in the name of God).

[Saras]

--“unfortunately, the communist experiment did not take place in a test tube, but in a hostile environment that tried to destroy the soviet state for 70 years.”

After the interventions in early 1920’s, what hostile environment are you talking about? If you look at trade figures, there were gadzilions of Western industrial equipment shipped in prewar USSR. There were Western engineers and supervisors at almost every major construction in USSR, so your argument is not 100% true.

--“as a consequence, it developed into a paranoid police-party structure.”

Not as a consequence. It is a defining trait of the Soviet system from the outset. Your view on USSR history is a bit (huge understatement) idealistic.

--“still, its overall impact was more postive than negative - it defeated hitler and it caused big capital worldwide to reexamine its position and treatment of the labor force.”

Well, Hitler pretty much defeated himself, but of course USSR was a key factor in the Allied victory. But you should not attribute this to communism – a tsarist or even better, a democratic Russia would also have defeated Hitler.

Soviet Union wasn’t completely alone in its struggle, but I don’t want to get into the traditional “Importance of lend-lease to Soviet ultimate victory” debate.

Re: labor – where is this from? The international labor movement started in the 19th century…?

[Colwyn]

How can you trust in Capitalism?! when recent events..

Capitalism has had almost complete power over the last 10 years, have we seen the military GDP's reduce to provide more social services?? NO in fact military budgets are going up.

Unemployment or less secure full time work is going up around the world. In Australia they claim unemployment is only 6% but if you count(which they don't since 92) those working less than 10hrs a week the rate is actually 22%

Youth suicide in our country in increasing at a even larger rate than the profits of our private banks.

The division b/w rich and poor is ever widening.

For decades the capitalists have blamed communism for many of the worlds problems, now that power base is gone I haven't seen the world being a more equal and peacefull place. Until we see some real positive gains I still will belive that a socialist based society is the only answer.

If just 5% of the money spend on arms and armaments went to providing education and social services to the worlds disadvantaged, there would be less wars, as most wars eventuate via ignorance(lack of education), fear and need (if you have nothing war becomes a means to end)

Here's something else: 1st World countries benifit from wars, it keeps them rich (providing arms) and stops others from playing on a equal footing. Wars will not reduce under capitalism.

Want your empire to grow, well how do we do that in Civ? Attack or get others to attack our compeditors.

Anyone know what the Vulcans did in Startrek to solve our problems.

maybe what we really need is Vulcanism!!!

[David Floyd]

christianity is against human nature. it is hostile towards many things, including those listed above (porn, gluttony, drinking, killing a random punter - um, at least if that is not done in the name of God).

That's true, but religion is a voluntary thing - one is exercising their liberty to go against human nature in a manner that does not harm the natural rights of others. In that sense, it is totally different from communism, which seeks to deny individual rights.

So your point about religion being against human nature in many ways is well taken, but I see no problem with it unless religion is exercised to the extent it violates the rights of others.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Capitalism has had almost complete power over the last 10 years, have we seen the military GDP's reduce to provide more social services?? NO in fact military budgets are going up.

Unemployment or less secure full time work is going up around the world. In Australia they claim unemployment is only 6% but if you count(which they don't since 92) those working less than 10hrs a week the rate is actually 22%

Youth suicide in our country in increasing at a even larger rate than the profits of our private banks.

The division b/w rich and poor is ever widening

The division between rich and poor is widening is because the rich are getting richer more than the poor are getting richer, but both are getting richer. Compare 1800 to 2000... and any other 200 year period in history before that. The advances and the per capita income has dramatically increased, exponential growth in money.

The problem with most communists is they assume money is a zero-sum gain. No, the rich and poor get richers. Per capita income explodes... you have the richest and more equitable society since civilization began... BECAUSE of capitalism.

Simply put, Capitalism is good.

If just 5% of the money spend on arms and armaments went to providing education and social services to the worlds disadvantaged, there would be less wars, as most wars eventuate via ignorance(lack of education), fear and need (if you have nothing war becomes a means to end)

Here's something else: 1st World countries benifit from wars, it keeps them rich (providing arms) and stops others from playing on a equal footing. Wars will not reduce under capitalism.

Yep, if money gets taken from the military (and I'd prefer that money go to the people in tax cuts) there would be greater economic growth. If you think 1st World countries benefit from wars, you haven't really been looking at things. Huge military budgets HURTS first world nations. It is a tribute to the United States that we have such a large military budget and still a great per capita income and prosperity!

International Relations data shows us that democracies don't fight against each other. So, capitalist democracies would lead to much less war and less military spending. Therefore we should expand capitalism and democracy across the world.

[David Floyd]

International Relations data shows us that democracies don't fight against each other.

Whereas, historically, communist nations have certainly fought each other, the most notable example being China and Vietnam and China and the USSR (large divisional sized border skirmishes on several occasions).

[Imran Siddiqui]

Whereas, historically, communist nations have certainly fought each other, the most notable example being China and Vietnam and China and the USSR (large divisional sized border skirmishes on several occasions).

David, authoritarian states do fight against each other, but NO WHERE near the amount of warfare between democracies and authoritarian states.

[chequita guevara]

War of 1812? Revolutionary War? US invasion of Puerto Rico? WWI (Germany, like England, was a constitutional monarchy, much power resided in the Parliament)? The Contra War against Nicaragua? Democracies fight each other also. The US Civil War?

You might as well toss in the McDonald's theory, that no two countries with a McDonald's have ever fought a war (the exception being the NATO war on Yugoslavia).

The US, Germany, and Britain almost got into a three way fight of American Somoa, except that a typhoon sank the other two fleets. Greece and Turkey are always almost getting into a fight, and only their NATO allies keep them from fighting. Turkey invaded Cyprus.

The whole democracies never fight is a crock of sh*t.



And just to tie it back into the thread, the US, Britain, and France all attacked the nacent Soviet state, back when it was still democratic.