Was The USSR Communism?

[WITHTEETH]

Yes, I also found his post to be somewhat extremely arrogant towards social democracies, not to mention COMPLETELY unfair and wrong.

 

Also Jellybelly,  did you read my response earlier about center-right wing turn in Denmark? It's not all that bad, you know. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Don't mean to butt in, but how is denmark taking a right turn? and how effective is the healthcare system in scandinavia?

[Verenti]

WRONG. You ASSERT it is a system based on greed, but you talk nonsense. Where is your proof? Oftimes when folks are in need, they help each other out IN A CAPITALISTIC SYSTEM. Private charity tends to flourish, as opposed to under communist ideology, where it likely never would.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

My my, What an elegant way to refute somone. I always think somone who starts a sentence with a word that is completely capitalised is a man of reason.

 

Proof that Capitalism is all about Greed? My good man, Anyone who'se lived in one of these government who prays to the god of commerce would find this truth to be Evident to those with eyes:

 

Where are advertisements: Everywhere

What's the most common wage: Minimum

What's the drive for society: Wealth

 

They sell shotty goods at inflated prices, anything to take the final dollar from the people. They use immoral practices to make their products at pennies a pop, Then they sell them as designer wear at hundreds of dollars for a shirt, that will start falling apart in a week.

 

Infact even look at the name "Capitalism", if my lingustic skills are correct then it would be "by Capitalists". Capitalists being, in plain English, the wealthy bourgeois upperclass (Almost a contradiction of terms, but I assure you they're not) who own factories, corperations, et cetera. So basically a system of the extremely rich: Where does that make mention of the poor at all. Infact Capitalists, like every other group throughout history, would rather not share their power, So really there would be a glass ceiling for the working class against the grandoise CEOs of the Modern World.

 

What a fair system 90% of the wealth is in 10% of the population. If you read my previous post that leaves, In the US, 12% of the population with near nothing.

Pray tell, How are these poor working stiffs going to help one another out?

 

If the system of Capitalism's focus on greed is not apparent to you then you must fantastically indoctrinated into the myth of which you hold so dear.

[draakh_kimera]

Yes, I also found his post to be somewhat extremely arrogant towards social democracies, not to mention COMPLETELY unfair and wrong.

 

Also Jellybelly,  did you read my response earlier about center-right wing turn in Denmark? It's not all that bad, you know. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Don't mean to butt in, but how is denmark taking a right turn? and how effective is the healthcare system in scandinavia?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

About Denmark, if I've understood correctley the current party in power is more to the right, or perhaps it would be better to say less to the left, than the previous one. As for why it's called a right turn, well, the scandinavian countries, at least Sweden, have been quite far to the left in the past.

 

As for the healthcare system, the Swedish one is bogged down by administration and bureaucracy. There's a shortage of proffesional doctors and when my grandfather who's 85 had to go to the hospital a while ago he had to wait for about 10 hours before meeting a doctor. Is this a result of social democracy? Perhaps partially. Most of the social democrat politicians here are completely incompetent, so that has probably had some part in it, doctors have a much more attractive salary abroad because of our tax system, and several people have made a career of making the healthcare system a bureaucracy. I don't really know enough to say anything else.

[jedipodo]

Why do we always talk about "Capitalism" as an abstract and absolute - yet negative - term. I think people have a different understanding of it, so we should rather talk about WHAT it actually means, and what not.

 

We should also ask us why most modern democratic countries manage to have a form of Capitalism which is very advantagous for almost everyone. There the citizens don't have to be suppressed or murdered to afford a working and nationwide wealthy society. This social form of Capitalism is a logical implication of freedom and human rights and is in contrast to dispossession and oppressive state control.

 

To the ones who still believe in real Communism on earth: Please, rationally compare the common living conditions of "capitalistic" systems with the ones in "real world"(=non fictional) communistic countries, e.g. USSR, China, Vietnam, North Korea... do I have to say more?

[jedipodo]

What a fair system 90% of the wealth is in 10% of the population.

Even if this should be right, would it be better then if zero wealth is in 100% of the population (as it is the case in most Anti-Capitalistic systems )?

 

If the system of Capitalism's focus on greed is not apparent to you then you must fantastically indoctrinated into the myth of which you hold so dear.

So do you.

 

BTW where do you come from?

[WITHTEETH]

I don;t think anyone here thinks that the USSR version of "communism" was a healthy way to live. its generally universal how people feel about it. but we have been defending socialism.

 

By the way, what do you think the USSR at the beggining stages of Communism was? socialist dictator, capitalist perhaps? feel free to express your opinion and make a constructive argument my ears are open. i can't seem to place my thumb on it. im thinking whle lenin was still around that it was a socialist dictator with bits of capitalism and military.

[jedipodo]

I don;t think anyone here thinks that the USSR version of "communism" was a healthy way to live. its generally universal how people feel about it. but we have been defending socialism.

 

By the way, what do you think the USSR at the beggining stages of Communism was? socialist dictator, capitalist perhaps? feel free to express your opinion and make a constructive argument    my ears are open. i can't seem to place my thumb on it.

 

im thinking whle lenin was still around that it was a socialist dictator with bits of capitalism and military. is there a word for that?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think this WAS "Socialism". One could also call it "Communism in actual practice".

 

It is interesting that Capitalism is introduced in the last remaining communistic countries of today. You can find this trend especially in China and Vietnam. They have gone to have great economic growth rates.

In China, for example, they even kept Hong Kong as it is to take advantage of its economy.

[Verenti]

I'm Nova Scotian, Which is in Canada (Although, I usually associate the Term "Canada" with Ontario and I'm not that close with the "Westerners") and I'm not so much a believer in Communism as my views may seem. I'm more Democratic, so naturally a society that emphasizes the strength of Corperation over the people it services is a vile crime. Ditto with emphasizing the Government over the people is serves.

 

A state should make sure its citizens can live to the fullest of their ideals by protecting their rights, not help somone take advantage of those very citizens that comprises it.

 

I apologize for any grammarical or spelling mistakes, I just got in from my Saturday Romp about the town and its nearing 4 am.

[The Dark Something or other]

I very much follow the train of thought which says the State is teh evil (well, not quite), and should be suspected at all times. Remember, Governments and institutions cannot give one freedom, as one has freedom by virtue of being born human; states can only restrict the freedoms of a man. Now, sometimes this is obviously necessary, but one should never play into the hands of the state and give it more reasons to take your freedom. Any politickal philosophy which requires a strong and centralised state as a fundamental part of it, I am deeply suspicious of. Of course, in TRUE communism the state would "wither away" and not exist at all....except that is never going to happen, because humanbeings all need a state and a cetralised authority. More than that, some people are just more able than others, and will strive to lead, or be better (and quite right). Thus, some people will fall into line, and hose born to lead will, and those not born to lead won't. However, the idea therefore, after accepting that the state is a needed evil, is to make sure it is restricted. "Communist" nations, imo, have failed because a true-communist state cannot exist... and therefore in order to implement these communist reforms there must be a strong cetralised state.

 

Of course, true communism can never come about not until it is the spontaneous will of the people (according to Marx). And therefore, communism will never come about, because people will always see what other people have, or what they themselves could have, and will aim for that, perhaps even "selfishly" so. That is the real world.

[WITHTEETH]

communism is not suppose to be spontanous, theres steps, people never reallly jump into anything, always increments. just like platos cave. the man was dragged out, the matrix was mostly unrealistic when he took the pill willingly.

first capitalism, then industrialization, then socialism then communism. the reason why the communist nations have failed is becasue it hasn't started like it should yet. it needs to start witht the working class rising above politically, which is possible in socialism. and not grabbing their guns to do so.

Im just thinking, how could we know if its not possible? the system could always be tweaked and Marks and Engals really didn't set up a strict system, he left room to work w/.

Of course the "real world" "communism" didn't work, its was your standard dictatorship who oppressed it people. and anytime you need to protect youir own regime from the people you govern, its doomed to have trouble.

Its sad that lenin got away with starving 2Million to industrialize his country for "a Means to an end" how scarey.

[Can]

Yes (except in WW2, they helped the Allies)

[The Dark Something or other]

No, communist revolution are supposed to occur spontaneously (as you kind of agree). No communist "revolution" thus far has worked because there has not been a widescale consensus amongst the working class, who have shared a common view of mankind' future. I think what you mean is that there are different stages of human society which must be gone thro first before one reaches communism.. right?

 

Anyway, I dout folks will ever have the rite mindset to make communism a viable option.. and that is no bad thing either!!

[WITHTEETH]

I agree w/ you ,its not neccessarily a bad thing.

[Jellybelly]

I very much follow the train of thought which says the State is teh evil (well, not quite), and should be suspected at all times. Remember, Governments and institutions cannot give one freedom, as one has freedom by virtue of being born human; states can only restrict the freedoms of a man. Now, sometimes this is obviously necessary, but one should never play into the hands of the state and give it more reasons to take your freedom. Any politickal philosophy which requires a strong and centralised state as a fundamental part of it, I am deeply suspicious of. Of course, in TRUE communism the state would "wither away" and not exist at all....except that is never going to happen, because humanbeings all need a state and a cetralised authority.  More than that, some people are just more able than others, and will strive to lead, or be better (and quite right). Thus, some people will fall into line, and hose born to lead will, and those not born to lead won't. However, the idea therefore, after accepting that the state is a needed evil, is to make sure it is restricted. "Communist" nations, imo, have failed because a true-communist state cannot exist... and therefore in order to implement these communist reforms there must be a strong cetralised state.

 

Of course, true communism can never come about not until it is the spontaneous will of the people (according to Marx). And therefore, communism will never come about, because people will always see what other people have, or what they themselves could have, and will aim for that, perhaps even "selfishly" so. That is the real world.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I couldn't disagree more with you on the subject of the state. Is the American fetish of unlimited freedom something that is very much historically related? Those of us who live in countries with a socialistic (or at least social) tradition are not prisoners of the state.

 

In my opinion, it is the responsibility of the state to ensure that all people are taken care of and provided for. I also find it immoral and unethical to let people who are in need of help continue to suffer. It is not right that those who are wealthy shall become ever wealthier on the expense of those who are not equally wealthy. Communism and ideology aside, to be social-minded is to care and take care of those who are not as lucky as oneself.

 

Why is it the state's responsibility to take care of the needy? Why should it be the state's responsibility to organize health care and education? Why should the state provide the safety nets? Why should private acteurs not be trusted too much with these things?

 

Because all a private corporation cares about is earning money. Profit. Profit. And profit. That is all that will matter, and the human beings in the system will be overlooked and pushed back. We will not be the priority. Liquid means will.

 

The state has a better possibility of staying neutral in cases like this. Its institutions need to stay afloat and prosper financially, of course, but this will be provided by the taxpayers, who are investing money into their own safety. There will be no need to start saving up for your children's college money the moment they are born, because education is free. There's no need to fear calling the ambulance, because you know an ambulance ride and two nights at a hospital will cost you $3000. It will be free. There's no need to fear having an accident that will render you unable to work - the state will help you, as is its responsibility.

 

Given that the system works, no top excecutive will be out only to cut a deal for himself, the SYSTEM will be for the benifit of the people.

 

You pay your taxes, but you are in no ways denied your freedom.

 

Unless the freedom that you crave is to carry guns and shoot whoever you like.

[WITHTEETH]

"Why is it the state's responsibility to take care of the needy? Why should it be the state's responsibility to organize health care and education? Why should the state provide the safety nets? Why should private acteurs not be trusted too much with these things?

 

Because all a private corporation cares about is earning money. Profit. Profit. And profit. That is all that will matter, and the human beings in the system will be overlooked and pushed back. We will not be the priority. Liquid means will.

 

The state has a better possibility of staying neutral in cases like this. Its institutions need to stay afloat and prosper financially, of course, but this will be provided by the taxpayers, who are investing money into their own safety. There will be no need to start saving up for your children's college money the moment they are born, because education is free. There's no need to fear calling the ambulance, because you know an ambulance ride and two nights at a hospital will cost you $3000. It will be free. There's no need to fear having an accident that will render you unable to work - the state will help you, as is its responsibility."

 

Well written jellybelly. but i do have some questions for anybody who lives in a socialist gov, that i have been wondering about.

 

1: How can a regular factory worker make more, or does he make more just to balance out the cost of healthcare and other expenses, because its going to bew taxed anyway.

 

2: You say that your state pays for college, i just want to hear it again just to be sure you mean college. also is education in a socialist country trated different?

 

3: Your opinion(or someone elses) on if its fair to the man who starts his own small business since he is taking the risk, if its fair to have to share more of the wealth, with his employees.

 

feel free to whomever answers these questions to ellaborate on them, im very curious. thank you

[SteveThaiBinh]

2: You say that your state pays for college, i just want to hear it again just to be sure you mean college. also is education in a socialist country trated different?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In the UK, education is free until the age of 18. Higher education (18+, university/college) used to be free, and mine was one of the last years to get it nearly free. It still is free in many European countries.

 

However, education is becoming more capitalist across the world. The idea is that the state should make primary (up to age 11-12) education free, because the whole of society, not just the individual, benefits from that. Think about it, that's basically when you learn to read and write, and a modern society and economy needs literate citizens in order for people to be able to sign contracts, fill in forms, vote in elections etc. But for higher education like university, more of the benefits go to the individual (e.g. higher salary) than to society. So the individual should fund her education herself, through family savings or loans.

 

The World Bank is pushing this model of education onto poor countries because they can't afford to fund their education systems any other way. Those European countries which are resisting are doing so because they see education as a fundamental human right, not as an economic investment. It's a better approach, but it's losing ground, I think.

[SteveThaiBinh]

3: Your opinion(or someone elses) on if its fair to the man who starts his own  small business since he is taking the risk, if its fair to have to share more of the wealth, with his employees.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If I understand this right, you're asking if it's fair for small businesses to pay a decent minimum wage? Yes, it is, and it's right for the government to intervene to enforce this. Low-wage pay is having a devastating effect on families, leading to stress-related illness and poor child-rearing, all of which is a mess that the state will have to clear up in the end. Better to prevent the mess in the first place.

 

The capitalist system places the investor at the centre, and offers her the maximum protection. But the workers in a small company are also major investors: they invest their time, their commitment, their acceptance of the risk of working for a small company. If a small business owner wants a stable and loyal workforce, of course a decent wage must be paid.

[WITHTEETH]

well that scares me to think that education is getting worse. since we control the earth to some extent, i wouldn't want it to be in the hands of idiots! how many years was it free in UK?

[Lucius]

1: How can a regular factory worker make more, or does he make more just to balance out the cost of healthcare and other expenses, because its going to bew taxed anyway.

 

2: You say that your state pays for college, i just want to hear it again just to be sure you mean college. also is education in a socialist country trated different?

 

 

I'm not sure what you mean in question 1, as for 2 well in Denmark (and I assume the other Scandinavian nations and a lot of European nations) school, high school and college (which I just called university here) is free. As a bonus for studying, you can apply for something called SU (a finincial aid from the state to those who study, and I'm only talking about Denmark here) when you turn 18, and the amount differs from person to person. (living at home or not, being far away from school etc.) I believe you're entitled to 6-9 years of this. The normal fee would be around 400$ a month for a standard 18 year old high school student, that's what most of us got anyway.

[SteveThaiBinh]

well that scares me to think that education is getting worse.  since we control the earth to some extent, i wouldn't want it to be in the hands of idiots!  how many years was it free in UK?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not sure. University was pretty much free until the 90s, then gradually the government contribution was cut back, and now students pay most of it themselves.

 

Universal secondary education came in I think in the Labour (Socialist) government of 1945-51(?). Primary might have been before that, but someone else might know more.

 

It is a phenomenal irony that World Bank experts (mostly from the US) go around the world pushing countries to adopt the US approach to education, but the US public school system isn't that great. Not that some schools in the UK are any better.

[WITHTEETH]

for question 1: i heard that people in scandinavia will make more on avreage in a socialist program, is this false? if it is true can you tell me how and why.

[Rosbjerg]

for question 1: i heard that people in scandinavia will make more on avreage in a socialist program, is this false? if it is true can you tell me how and why.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

what do you mean precisely by socialist program?

[WITHTEETH]

Yes i agree about the U.S. schools not being that great, i have a big opinion on this. i think it should be year-round, and shorter days and more small breaks in between. also pay the teachers more. also stop bogging the teachers down with tests and STOP THE MULTI CHOICE QUESTIONS! and free college.

 

=less crime, less poverty, and the kids don't come back from summer break w/ no clue.

[WITHTEETH]

for question 1: i heard that people in scandinavia will make more on avreage in a socialist program, is this false? if it is true can you tell me how and why.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

what do you mean precisely by socialist program?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I mean a socialist gov. like the one you are from. i was under the influence that the average worker gets paid more, gets their actual cut, so the top doesn't get it all, so their can't be a bill gates or enron exec with a swiss bank account.

[Rosbjerg]

I mean a socialist gov. like the one you are from. i was under the influence that the average worker gets paid more, gets their actual cut, so the top doesn't get it all, so their can't be a bill gates or enron exec with a swiss bank account.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

well our labour unions are better (or just more powerful) than the ones in other countries .. and in many cases it's necessary to be part of a (required by the place you work) to be a part of a union .. and in a social Democracy wages are generally higher, since you also pay much higher taxes!

 

but the reason why we don't have a Bill Gates or whatever is because the more money you make .. the more you pay in taxes (procent wise) .. so taxes differ from person to person! and can wage from 0% to almost 60-65% ..

 

now we still have our share of rich people, but the average joe also makes more money and then pays less taxes, so there's not the big difference in social classes as you see in say UK or US ..

 

to then make people start their own buisness (which doens't seem that lucrative when faced with higher taxes) you can take alot of what you spend on buisness related items out of your taxes .. so you don't get butchered the first couple of years!