socialism, property, and the state

[GeneralTacticus]

The Soviet Union is gone, isn't it?

You're telling me the USSR collapsed because people blocked it's toilets?

[cia]

GeneralTacticus,
When you gotta go, you gotta go

[GeneralTacticus]

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Comrades, neighbors, fellow workers. I put before you the case of Comrade Floyd, who has been accused and found guilty of hoarding food stuffs. It has been proposed that he should be ostracized by his neighbors, friends, family, and coworkers.

How votes the community?

[Then everyone votes]

Then people for hundreds of miles around will see, tremble, know and scream out: let's choke and strangle that blood-sucking Floyd and his allies. [/paraphrase]

The comrades would of course have to use thier toughest people for this action.

[chequita guevara]

Seriously, GT, consider the blocked toilet. Whenever you go to use the public toilets, they aren't working. This goes on for years. You're going to begin to question the ability of the society to provide services. Now spread this to all areas of life, and you raise the level of dissastisfaction rather substantially. Electricty is always going out. Busses don't show up on time. Food gets spoiled because the trains cant run because someone has damaged the trains or the tracks, and so on.

Now, that certainly wasn't the only cause, nor would I suggest even the major cause, but it was certainly a contributing cause. I would argue that the major reason for the downfall of the USSR was seizure of power by the bureaucracy, and the resulting alienation from public life of the working class of the USSR.

[Az]

as far as my parents' stories tell me , I agree.

[chequita guevara]

The USSR really put up with a lot from the West. We would have declared war on them if they had done to us half of what we did to them. Since they knew they couldn't beat us in conventional war, and no one would survive nuclear war, they had no other choice . . .





That's not true, they had other options. A more open society would have probably revealed to the Soviet people how much of their troubles were caused by Western terrorism, which might have rallied them to defend their state. Also, genuinely persuing interntional revolution, instead of merely giving it lip service would have taken the pressure of the Soviets. Both options, however, would have damaged the bureaucracy's ability to maintain control of the society, so neither was a viable option to them.

[Az]

A more open society. well , it was tried under Chrustchev. but once he was decapacitated, Breznev took power , and then... then, well all went downhill from there.

I say the mistake was to try and match the west's military supremacy. with the amount of nukes the USSR possessed , it was rather stupid to do it. MAD would have ensured peace.

[Dr Strangelove]

Re: socialism, property, and the state

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Human beings, for almost their entire existence, lived in a propertiless state. Property only came into existence when humans began agriculture. What is the point of owning property, if you have to carry it everywhere? Just drop the stupid rock and make a new tool when you need it. This is what the achaelogical record shows. This is, in fact, how other tool using primates still act today (chimps, bonbos, etc).

Once agriculture was invented, once people didn't have to keep moving to secure food, then, and only then, could property come into existence and become feasable. Even then, property was only in existence for a priveledged few, priests and priest-kings, nobility.

I doubt this. Archaelogy shows that stable agriculture appeared in human history before temples and palaces appeared, so it's safe to say that the concept of personal property appeared in history first. When a person breaks his back all day in, day in and day out, to work a piece of land and raise a crop he or she insists that that piece of land is his. I think that if you review the works of sociologists who have studied "primitive" cultures, i.e., cultures that sustain themselves with rudimentary agriculture you'd find that most of these cultures evolved such a concept of personal property. As these cultures grow the area under cultivation by adjacent villages eventually meets. When the boundaries meet then if pressure to grow continues there will be war unless something intervenes to impose order. That something is the beginning of government. It stands to reason then that property preceeds government. Also, it is not until stable agriculture evolves that people have the time to devote to formal religion, so property also preceeds temples.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus


You're telling me the USSR collapsed because people blocked it's toilets?

Well, tha would just about do it, wouldn't it?

[David Floyd]

A more open society would have probably revealed to the Soviet people how much of their troubles were caused by Western terrorism

No, an open society would allow the people to see the relative wealth and advantages of the West, especially the US. That would bring the whole commmunist system crumbling down, unless military force was used.

[Az]

well, that would be just propoganda, especially when shown the poverty of other countries on the other side , like south america, africa, and asia...

actually, Floyd , there was an exposition of american culture in Moscow in the 50s , which many people flocked to see . It showed all the good stuff about the US .

but I guess , if you'd put the best collective farms , and industries in the SU on display in Washington , it would be labeled propoganda, if it would be even allowed to be created.

[Imran Siddiqui]

if you'd put the best collective farms , and industries in the SU on display in Washington , it would be labeled propoganda, if it would be even allowed to be created

There were 'best' collective farms and industries in the USSR?

[chequita guevara]

Yep.

[David Floyd]

actually, Floyd , there was an exposition of american culture in Moscow in the 50s , which many people flocked to see . It showed all the good stuff about the US .

The people didn't really understand that our quality of life was about a million times better than theirs. I mean, you see a new car, whatever whupty****, but if you realize most Americans own one (or whatever example you choose) that's something else entirely.