Was The USSR Communism?

[taks]

wasn't confusing the two just stating it was a fact. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

in your statement, you stated that it wasn't socialism, but a dictatorship. the two are not mutually exclusive. socialism is socio-economic policy, dictatorship refers to political policy.

 

taks

[WITHTEETH]

notice you added a comma instead of the period i had in between, i was just staing it was a dictatorship, i know what i was stating but sometiems it comes out wrong. on paper i guess.

[Lucius]

Trust me taks, we're doing just fine, and have been for the past 60 years. Yours is by far not a desirable society seen from our POV by so many accounts it's difficult to name them all.. I think I'll stick with a welfare state and pay a little (ok quite a bit) more in taxes.

[taks]

notice you added a comma instead of the period i had in between, i was just staing it was a dictatorship,  i know what i was stating but sometiems it comes out wrong. on paper i guess. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

okie...

military dictatorship, btw.

 

oh, and the elite in communist russia were really not all that wealthy. at least not by western standards. gorbachev lived in a two bedroom apartment...

 

in just about any system, there will eventually be a division of wealth. the difference lies in the ability to be on one side of that dividing line or the other. in a socialist system, you're stuck. in a capitalist system, it may be hard to cross over, but it is always possible.

 

taks

[WITHTEETH]

I liket he idea of socialism still and i still think it can work. and i am not impressed with private eduactiuon either. there are a ton of ways to tweak the system to make it work. socialism is about making life easier and less stressful. sometimes kids get hurt, then what? they dont get treatment because they dont have healthcare? or they crowd the emergence room more becuase people can't get regular checkups so they o at the last minute when its unbareable. also Social security. it was set up to MAKE the older retirees have a income still so they wouldnt have to become a bum after they retired out on the street our forced into a relatives homes where they have to take care of them whether they can or not.

We need socialism. how come people wont try to help the poor people out? look at the duckbilled platapus. our system doesnt include it in the mammal category. do youy know why? because our system isn't good enough. why can't we lean on our brother ans sisters to help eachother out?

not all privatised businesses are good either, thats a fact.

[WITHTEETH]

ok thanks taks

[WITHTEETH]

Ok think about if for your kids and grand kids sake... do you want them to DEFINATELY have healthcarea and a retirement aid, amd make a better public education system so they can make better decision and not get lied too, because thje more one knows the harder it is to lie to that person. the more valuable that person is to make decisions for his community. or what the heck, take a chance. what we do while we have the power matters. we are living on a thin line. screw the past. we blame ourselves if we dont make it better for them.

[Verenti]

Good god taks. You know why we don't make people pay for social services? Because some people can't pay. And when the quality of life for individuals gets low, people get angry. Really fantastically angry. People that angry riot and kill.

 

Do you know how many people are below the Poverty Line in the US? 24,418,964 (12%!) according to the CIA World Fact Book. How do you tell people like that "Oh I'm sorry, You don't get the medical treatment you need to live because your poor" or "You don't get to attend school because you can't afford it". How does that help anyone? You're just going to accelerate a state where the poor become extremely poor and the rich suck the marrow from their bones. How is that a better system to do thing and for what benefits? A few extra dollars?

 

 

On the Subject of the USSR

I think that the best description of their Government would be a Prolitariat Dictatorship. It was rule by the former Serf Class: Stalin and Lenin, These men were not rich men before the revolution. Thus it was rule by the poor.

[mkreku]

No matter how flawed a socialist society is, I still prefer it to a pure capitalist society. A society whose goal is to take care of everyone is always better than one that thinks the individual should be able to trample on the weak 'just because they can'. At least TRY to be fair (even if you don't succceed) than give up and only benefit a few.

[Jellybelly]

Taks is way out of line, and is displaying a surprising level of ignorance, saying that the "so called social democracies" cannot work. It is funny then, that the Scandinavian countries have practiced this form of government for 60 years - and year after these same countries come out on top in all aspects of diverse social life surveys: Level of literacy, quality of health care, wealth rate, etc.

 

A popular American belief seems to be that all ideologies focused on welfare and social equality are inherently totalitarian. This is frustrating to deal with, because there are those of us in the world who know better. True, totalitarianism has been the result in many countries, however this is not part of the principles and ideals of the theories itself. Personally, I find it astounding that some people consider it a bad thing to (as I've said countless times, it feels like) get free education, free health care, a social network to pick up persons who for various reasons may be rendered unable to earn their own income etc.

 

There seems to be an issue of choice at the core of it, but really, I'd rather see a little less of my paycheck every month, than losing my life savings if I or a member of my family should suffer a heart attack.

 

"every social system in the US is either failing, or has failed. let's look at the list..."

 

And how is that a good thing? Shouldn't the United States work harder on making their deplorably lacking welfare systems more efficient? You guys are always welcome here on the other side of the pond for a seminar.

 

Is your point that a country is better off without welfare systems? "Damn all those folks, it's their own fault for falling ill?" or "hell, if they can't pay for their education, they might as well not have one. I don't care if they get condemned to poverty".

 

You seem to be using the poor state your own welfare systems are in as an argument that it is a bad thing to have them. I think you'd better pucker up and get your systems whipped into workable shape.

 

"as it stands, the US is supporting many of the social democracies in the world with regards to healthcare."

 

If that isn't a prime example of american chauvinism, I don't know what is. Yeah, it's a good thing you do research. It's a good thing right? You don't want the gov't to pull the plug on research, do you? Also, medicinal research isn't something that you can take the credit for on your own. And those products are SOLD, you aren't supporting anyone.

 

"socialism, even the so-called social democracy, looks good on paper. it doesn't work in practice simply because there is no way for a socialist economy to adjust for varying demand. even them there scandinavian countries will fail if they keep the government dole high. unemployment in europe puts the US situation to shame. double digits are the norm in most every socialist country. it's a failure, and those that don't recognize that will fail right along with it..."

 

Why are you using the term "government dole" for both airline tickets and the Dole? Not a single thing you write here is correct. The system has worked for 60 years. One would imagine there would be signs of it failing by now, right? It's been a long time. However, the USA's economy seems to be worsening by the year, as far as I can see. Also, you don't seem to realize what a social democracy is. It is not a state where the government controls everything. The economy is mixed, with both market economy and government regulation. It's quite successful too. Especially since the USA is outscored on every account. The grades of exchange students who return to Norway after a year in the United States plummet, as a result of getting used to your multiple choice tests.

[mkreku]

Americans will always believe their governments propaganda before the actual comparison between nations. No matter how long a socialist government has managed to compete (and outlast other nations) Americans will still think they have the greatest system in the world. Even though 10+% are below the poverty line in their own country.. If americans finally understood what their government did to them, there wouldn't be no more Bush's or similar characters at the top level. It's too bad the propaganda is so powerful.

[WITHTEETH]

My boss has the same views as tak does... i don't know where it roots from. Could it be fundmemtalism creeping in again? why would the people who it could help (75%easy) reject it as nonesense?

 

where could that belief come from?

 

It would be difficult to change, but what doesnt change? isnt the meaning of life to be happy, so why not make it easier to be?

 

Edit: I dont know how to respond to mkreku's post. all i can say is alot of people in every country will believe they live in the best country. i personally don't beleive i as an amercian live in the best country.

[Jellybelly]

I believe it stems from indoctrination - the propaganda of the US during the cold war proved to be very effective. We can still see the results: Most Americans know nothing whatsoever of what socialism or communism is, they only "know" it's the work of Satan, or something like that.

 

I would like to see response from Taks on my last comment, on the last page. Easy to overlook.

[WITHTEETH]

I believe it stems from indoctrination - the propaganda of the US during the cold war proved to be very effective. We can still see the results: Most Americans know nothing whatsoever of what socialism or communism is, they only "know" it's the work of Satan, or something like that.

 

I would like to see response from Taks on my last comment, on the last page. Easy to overlook.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

ok wil right now but as i do, can you tell me how effective you healthcare system is so i can have some ammo when i debate socialism.

[Jellybelly]

It's going to have to be tomorrow, it's 4am here, and I'm supposed to be at work tomorrow. I'll get back to you!

[WITHTEETH]

Agree with alot of it jelly, its strange that we have this crppled healthcare system, do you think anyone would sue it if it was universal? goodluck.

As of welfare... i believe that there should be one also.

Educatiuon itied with healthcare! its so importatnt for crime, success, happiness!

To put your hope in private schools for just a few kids is wrong! america isn;t united when it stands. but if properly educated it will.

[213374U]

Ok, everybody has danced around my question for about 30 posts now. we've said it wasn't communism, its not socialism either, and its not capitalist( Parts were though <_<  ). so what ISM is was the USSR when lenin and stalin controlled it?

I still think it had strong socialist elements, from a economic standpoint at least. Perhaps you are seeking to apply a by-the-book definition to that situation, and as I stated before, I don't think you are going to find pure theory applied in a verbatim way, in any real world situation.

 

 

it needs an ideal situation, where consumers only demand what they need and all consumers would somehow magically need exactly the same things.  the only way communism can succeed is if the law of supply and demand (present in any economic system) were to go away.

No, not really. In fact it would just need for people to demand just what they need, and at the same time work for the common good, without any perspective of selfish personal improvement from a material standpoint. However, people are not ants. It can be argued that such a society would in the end stagnate and die because it assumes that every single individual is just another block without any chance of promotion, in any way. And while there are other many motivations, personal gain is the ultimate engine of progress, as it has been proven through History.

 

 

if history has proven anything, it is that socialist systems bankrupt themselves eventually.  always.  once you take the market out of any system, it begins to fail.  every social system in the US is either failing, or has failed.  let's look at the list...

In fact, History proves otherwise. But at any rate, all extremes are bad. A society in which capitalism runs rampant is bound to suffer worker revolts, as it happened in 19th century Europe. A society in which the individual has no room for growth in a material way is doomed to fall because the lack of enthusiasm of its members.

 

 

socialism, even the so-called social democracy, looks good on paper.  it doesn't work in practice simply because there is no way for a socialist economy to adjust for varying demand.  even them there scandinavian countries will fail if they keep the government dole high.  unemployment in europe puts the US situation to shame.  double digits are the norm in most every socialist country.  it's a failure, and those that don't recognize that will fail right along with it...

I suggest you revise your figures. And don't mistake socialism with a bad management. Having social care in exchange for higher taxes doesn't mean killing the market system, or suppressing the law of supply and demand. Granted, the balance is difficult to achieve and you have to be absolutely ruthless when dealing with the parasytes of the system, but it works. We europeans are living proof of that, and we aren't any closer to economic collapse than the US are.

 

On a side note, I am somewhat puzzled by your discourse. You seem to be a reasonable person with a good knowledge of economics theory, but for some reason, your prejudices towards any "left-wing" economic policies blind you to the facts and drive you to assume some rather extreme stances. Perhaps you could illustrate with facts what forces you to display such opinions?

 

 

And... um, I was a bit drunk when I wrote all of that, so don't be too hard on me.

[WITHTEETH]

Your last sentence about WHY people think this way also puzzles me... i think about it alot because i know so many people who think like that also. and when kids have questions they go to the most obvious source, their parents. not a book or a intellectual. and once you make your mind up the FIRST time... its just that much tougher to change it. becasue your looking at it biased from there and getting all the ammo that supports it from there on.

 

Thats my hypothesis on the human mindset.

[Lucius]

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.

[The Dark Something or other]

Hardly Sir.

 

By its nature, the promotion of Capitalists, Capitalistism is a system of greed and any system of greed does not support charitable notions. You might reference to Tax cuts for Charitable donations but that is not a Capitialist notion: That is a Socialist system trying to get money for the impoverished people from Capitalists.

 

Capitalists are, by definition, the wealthy elite that own the industry. The notion that anyone can become part of that corperate oligarchy is a popular myth. You can only be raised into the inner circle if you are already from wealthy stock: How is anyone going to become a factory owner when the corperations pay as little as they can get away with: Minimal Wage.

 

How can a system that incourages paying minimal wage, the lowest possible wage, also be a strong propellent of Charities? How can a system based ENTIRELY on greed help the little guy?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

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.

[The Dark Something or other]

Capitalism does not exclude charitableness. In fact, quite arguably, it encourages it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes and no. The idea of capitalism is that the best way to help society is to be personally selfish - by working for your own interests, you create wealth and employment which incidentally benefits others as well. It was called 'trickledown' by Thatcher and Reagan, but it's not a new idea.

 

The kind of charity we see in rich countries is not inspired by neo-liberal capitalism, but another source such as religion, tradition or a sense of social justice. Socialists would say that this just another way for the elites to shore up their position - you can't be 'rich' unless there are poor people to look down on as you 'give generously'.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Trickle down.... Thatcher.. blah.

 

Communism didn't work FOR A REASON. End of debate. :cool:

[The Dark Something or other]

I liket he idea of socialism still   and i still think it can work.  and i am not impressed with private eduactiuon either.  there are a ton of ways to tweak the system to make it work.  socialism is about making life easier and less stressful. sometimes kids get hurt, then what? they dont get treatment because they dont have healthcare? or they crowd the emergence room more becuase people can't get regular checkups so they o at the last minute when its unbareable. also Social security. it was set up to MAKE the older retirees have a income still so they wouldnt have to become a bum after they retired out on the street our forced into a relatives homes where they have to take care of them whether they can or not.

We need socialism.  how come people wont try to help the poor people out? look at the duckbilled platapus. our system doesnt include it in the mammal category. do youy know why? because our system isn't good enough.  why can't we lean on our brother ans sisters to help eachother out?

not all privatised businesses are good either, thats a fact.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

What about folks who WANT private education? Ya know, the folks wh oactually don't want to get the same Governmentally decided crap spewed at them or their kids, and so decide "Hey, let's do soemthing different". What of those people? Communism, even in its "pure" forms fundamentally contravenes the freewill of people.

 

A lot of these state set up things- and they have to be set up and maintained by a strong state or else they wouldn't work according to their plans- such as healthcare, arguably cause MORE problems for people as they are centrally adminstrated, bureaucratic, wasteful and corrupt.

 

RE: Better education... most Marxists beleive that the "better" schools, the ones that teach you more etc, are the ones that indoctrinate you most into the state....

[The Dark Something or other]

No matter how flawed a socialist society is, I still prefer it to a pure capitalist society. A society whose goal is to take care of everyone is always better than one that thinks the individual should be able to trample on the weak 'just because they can'. At least TRY to be fair (even if you don't succceed)  than give up and only benefit a few.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

 

You've obviously never lived in a communist society.

 

I'll say this: capitalism is about as far as it gets. The number of people I know from poor- really poor- backgrounds who now are of varying degrees of wealth, influence and suchliek is quite impressive. They got their by their own merits. Yeah, not everyone can get rich, but tough- that is life. However, the amount of genuine social mobility in western capitalistic democracies, compared to any other form of economics or government EVER, is quite impressive.

[Lucius]

I *DO* think they're talking about social democracies more than communist states, as in response to Mr. Uber capitalist who posted a page before. That's my impression now anyway.

[213374U]

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.

I'm inclined to agree. But it can be argued that in a communist society, there is no room for charity since there should be no need for it. Often what happens IRL is that the individual can't give away any of their resources for charity, but charity would be needed anyway.