Ask me about Communism.

[lord of flies]

Anyway. Entrepreneurialism is arguably the most valuable of human skills. Prosperity is a direct function of commerce, and historically progress has been closely linked to prosperity. So... you want to minimize progress? Shrewd.

Reminder that the Soviet Union in 1934 was better off than the Russian Empire in 1914, despite having suffered nearly a decade of war and civil war. Reminder that the Soviet Union in 1989 was better off than the Russian Federation in 2009. Yet commerce is sooooo great that it always means better things for the people involved. Economic growth under Mao progressed at a similar rate to under Deng, but I guess you'd prefer the latter since all that growth went to the rich?

[Walsingham]

People inherently aren't equal. How can you tell me that some unmotivated **** who sits at home, has kids, and collects welfare is equal to a brilliant scientist (or the like) who has contributed to mankind in some way?

I'm not. I'm telling you that the businessman who steals all the profits that rightfully belong to that brilliant scientist should be eliminated from the entire process. But you've chosen to deliberately misinterpret socialism over and over again, in the ridiculous strawman that never applied to any country in the world. Ever.

Also, you really think that the Bolshevik revolution was bloodless? I mean, really?

Do you really think that the actual act of storming the Winter Palace was anything more than the tiny capstone on months of work? Do you think that if the Bolsheviks had simply assembled a much, much larger group outside the palace, demanding that the Provisional Government dissolve itself, it would not do so? Or maybe you just think that the RCW is part of the Bolshevik revolution.

 

Do I need to resort to citing color revolutions at you?

- As my support for intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan proves, I have nothing against sacrifice. But sacrifice with an end in sight. Because your system revolves around constant extreme control it necessitates constant violence on the part of the state. However I also think your comments underline my central contention that you are a footling adolescent coffee-shop academic.

Hmm, except no. Why does the system I've proposed rely upon constant, state-sponsored violence? Because you say so. Why do I go to coffee shops? Because you say so.

 

I am perfectly content to rely upon the -consistently strong - general historical knowledge of the forum to support my contention that the bolshevik revolution relied upon violence to be completed, and an enduring persistent violence to be maintained. You can deny it as much as you like, but you're convincing no-one.

 

Why do I insist persistent violence is both an historical fact and theoretical constant? Because your system revolves around the minute regulation of the flow of capital to maintain equity in the face of individual differences in ability and ambition. Such unnatural control can only exist through use of force, since you cannot persuade people to adopt a completely unnatural and (often) self-harming behaviour. Which you might know if you actually did anything with your life besides debate abstract philosophy.

 

As for LoF's use of euphemisms, it's fairly obvious that he has adopted this comunist schtick to try and look cool, and chicks don't dig a guy who says he wants to murder his political adversaries. Well, unless he's quite charming and has a nice butt.

[lord of flies]

I am perfectly content to rely upon the -consistently strong - general historical knowledge of the forum to support my contention that the bolshevik revolution relied upon violence to be completed, and an enduring persistent violence to be maintained. You can deny it as much as you like, but you're convincing no-one.

look, which one of us knows more about the October Revolution? The one who has actually studied the topic, or the one who unironically thinks socialists believe everyone should be equal? The October Revolution took place on November 7, 1917, and involved a small force of Petrograd Bolsheviks affiliated with the Petrograd Soviet invading the Winter Palace against an even more anemic section of supporters of the current regime, who promptly deserted. That was the entirety of the violence in the entire affair, beginning and end. It was certainly a capstone on months of resistance to the government, but the changing of hands was very quick.

 

The Russian Civil War was not, like you seem to think, part of the October Revolution.

 

Here, let me quote Wikipedia, well known bastion of communist ideologues.

For the most part, the revolt in Petrograd was bloodless, with the Red Guards led by Bolsheviks taking over major government facilities with little opposition before finally launching an assault on the Winter Palace on the night of 25/26 October. The assault led by Vladimir Antonov-Ovseenko was launched at 9:45 p.m. signaled by a blank shot from the cruiser Aurora. (The Aurora was placed in Petrograd (modern Saint Petersburg) and still stands there now.) The Winter Palace was guarded by Cossacks, cadets (military students), and a Women's Battalion. It was taken at about 2 a.m. The earlier date was made the official date of the Revolution, when all offices except the Winter Palace had been taken.

Russian Republic Casualties and Losses: All deserted

Why do I insist persistent violence is both an historical fact and theoretical constant? Because your system revolves around the minute regulation of the flow of capital to maintain equity in the face of individual differences in ability and ambition. Such unnatural control can only exist through use of force, since you cannot persuade people to adopt a completely unnatural and (often) self-harming behaviour. Which you might know if you actually did anything with your life besides debate abstract philosophy.

No, actually, you still don't seem to get it. I feel as if I'm talking to a brick wall here. Did the western social imperialists really do such a number on all you guys?

 

SOCIALISM NEVER PRESCRIBED PERFECT OR TOTAL EQUALITY. THAT HAS NEVER BEEN THE POINT OF SOCIALISM. IT DID NOT EXIST IN THE USSR, IT DID NOT EXIST IN CHINA, AND NO SOCIALIST STATE SERIOUSLY PURSUED IT.

[lord of flies]

I can't edit my own posts due to this "moderated" crap, so here's a little quote from Karl Marx, well-known God King of Communist Theory:

The right of the producers (AKA the workers) is proportional to the labor they supply; the equality consists in the fact that measurement is made with an equal standard, labor.

 

But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only -- for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.

I seem to remember posting this before, but apparently you just wiped it from your minds...

[Tigranes]

The blessing and curse of LOF being moderated is that I actually have to read everything he posts.

 

As usual, I think it's quite enlightening, in a pseudo-Disney way, how some of the arguments used to throw sticks and stones at LOF are in fact quite ill-informed and ignorant. Notice I said some. As for the others (meaning walsingham et al), I'm not qualified to be able to tell.

 

LOF, latching on your insistence that socialism was never about 'perfect or total equity', didn't Soviet Russia attempt to install systems of equal pay for its citizens fairly early on, then remove it, I think, in the Khruschev regime, due to the loss of motivation in previously higher paid workers and general discontent?

[lord of flies]

LOF, latching on your insistence that socialism was never about 'perfect or total equity', didn't Soviet Russia attempt to install systems of equal pay for its citizens fairly early on, then remove it, I think, in the Khruschev regime, due to the loss of motivation in previously higher paid workers and general discontent?

Doesn't sound familiar. War Communism didn't have that, NEP didn't have that, and those were the economic systems of 1918-1928. There was some economic equalization with respect to the peasantry during collectivization, though.

 

Looking through Farm to Factory (the only book on the subject I currently have on hand; see p. 133 in your own copy), it seems like there was certainly economic differentiation between the peasantry and the urban proletariat, such that moving to the cities coincided with an increase in consumption. Of course, I don't have Gosplan statistics on 1930s economic differentiation on hand, but I would be inclined to assume that there was some differentiation between the richest and poorest urban workers, even in the same city.

[213374U]

Reminder that the Soviet Union in 1934 was better off than the Russian Empire in 1914, despite having suffered nearly a decade of war and civil war.

Hmm, better off, you say? Well, it's strictly true; GDP per capita was ~$1500 in 1914, against ~$1600 (international 1990 dollars) in 1934. Economic genius, indeed. And such pitiful growth was paid for with copious amounts of blood... not that you care. But it still supports what I said: communism stifles progress.

 

www.cefir.ru/download.php?id=2142

 

 

Reminder that the Soviet Union in 1989 was better off than the Russian Federation in 2009.

Apologies, tovarishch, but that seems to be incorrect. Russia reached its 1989 GDP level in 2006. Your figures seem to have been sabotaged!

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Soviet_Union_GDP.gif

 

 

Yet commerce is sooooo great that it always means better things for the people involved. Economic growth under Mao progressed at a similar rate to under Deng, but I guess you'd prefer the latter since all that growth went to the rich?

I'd prefer neither, to be frank. But if I had to choose, I'd probably go with Deng since mad policies such as collectivisation and widespread cultural repression were not among his hobbies. The same can't be said for his predecessor, unfortunately.

 

edit: oops

Edited December 11, 2009 by 213374U

[lord of flies]

Reminder that the Soviet Union in 1934 was better off than the Russian Empire in 1914, despite having suffered nearly a decade of war and civil war.

Hmm, better off, you say? Well, it's strictly true; GDP per capita was ~$1500 in 1914, against ~$1600 (international 1990 dollars) in 1934. Economic genius, indeed. And such pitiful growth was paid for with copious amounts of blood... not that you care. But it still supports what I said: communism stifles progress.

 

www.cefir.ru/download.php?id=2142

What about compared to, say, 1922 figures, you know, the same figures that a White Russia would have had to deal with?

Reminder that the Soviet Union in 1989 was better off than the Russian Federation in 2009.

Apologies, tovarishch, but that seems to be incorrect. Russia reached its 1991 GDP level in 2006. Your figures seem to have been sabotaged!

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Soviet_Union_GDP.gif

Okay, let's see the Russian Federation project forces or serious influence anywhere that it doesn't have a direct land border to. Or let's see it seriously compete with the United States in technical developments. Or how about we see it get the number of people living under the poverty line back to pre-collapse levels. GDP isn't a number you can just hurl at someone and say "look! everything is better now!" It's a meaningless number that represents only the fact that a specific amount of fiat currency is used in that nation's economy. Also, that's GDP, not GDP per capita, and it compares the Soviet Union to the Former Soviet Union. Oops!

Yet commerce is sooooo great that it always means better things for the people involved. Economic growth under Mao progressed at a similar rate to under Deng, but I guess you'd prefer the latter since all that growth went to the rich?

I'd prefer neither, to be frank. But if I had to choose, I'd probably go with Deng since mad policies such as collectivisation and widespread cultural repression were not among his hobbies. The same can't be said for his predecessor, unfortunately.

Deng is a capitalist. I don't know if you knew this, so I thought I'd remind you.

[I want teh kotor 3]

People inherently aren't equal. How can you tell me that some unmotivated **** who sits at home, has kids, and collects welfare is equal to a brilliant scientist (or the like) who has contributed to mankind in some way?

I'm not. I'm telling you that the businessman who steals all the profits that rightfully belong to that brilliant scientist should be eliminated from the entire process. But you've chosen to deliberately misinterpret socialism over and over again, in the ridiculous strawman that never applied to any country in the world. Ever.

 

Why? That businessman is evidently equally brilliant, just in a different manner. He's good at what he does. If that's grounds for execution. then what isn't? Being a good government puppet and doing exactly what they tell you to do, and giving up all of the money you make above a sum decided by someone who has no real right to decide what you should do?

 

Also, you really think that the Bolshevik revolution was bloodless? I mean, really?

Do you really think that the actual act of storming the Winter Palace was anything more than the tiny capstone on months of work? Do you think that if the Bolsheviks had simply assembled a much, much larger group outside the palace, demanding that the Provisional Government dissolve itself, it would not do so? Or maybe you just think that the RCW is part of the Bolshevik revolution.

They had every intention to kill those guards- the guards just realized this, and got the **** out of Doge. And besides, Russia's Communist government itself did plenty of killing.

[lord of flies]

Why? That businessman is evidently equally brilliant, just in a different manner. He's good at what he does. If that's grounds for execution. then what isn't? Being a good government puppet and doing exactly what they tell you to do, and giving up all of the money you make above a sum decided by someone who has no real right to decide what you should do?

"What he does"? Investment is not work. Period.

They had every intention to kill those guards- the guards just realized this, and got the **** out of Doge. And besides, Russia's Communist government itself did plenty of killing.

We were discussing the October Revolution, not the Russian Civil War or the USSR. Please don't bring up such red herrings, it makes it look like you're attempting to change the subject and avoid the argument.

[Monte Carlo]

As usual, I think it's quite enlightening, in a pseudo-Disney way, how some of the arguments used to throw sticks and stones at LOF are in fact quite ill-informed and ignorant. Notice I said some. As for the others (meaning walsingham et al), I'm not qualified to be able to tell.

 

Like I said, this thread might as well be entitled 'Ask me about Fascism.'

 

All play nicely with the wordy authoritarian, but I'm out of this thread.

[Walsingham]

Why? That businessman is evidently equally brilliant, just in a different manner. He's good at what he does. If that's grounds for execution. then what isn't? Being a good government puppet and doing exactly what they tell you to do, and giving up all of the money you make above a sum decided by someone who has no real right to decide what you should do?

"What he does"? Investment is not work. Period.

 

Have you ever assessed, planned, and implemented a campaign of investment? No. I thought not.

 

I am quite happy to criticise people who are doing non-jobs which could as easily be done by machines, and in many cases are. But you have the typical mendicant's disregard for how hard management is. I know a couple of self-made millionaires who you would regard as having got rich off the sweat of others. I would argue instead that they ensured the others found application for their sweat IN ADDITION to sweating, worrying, and fuming themselves. A really top class manager and organiser adds value to everyone around him. He is a multiplier of others.

 

You say you are not against inequality, or democracy, or private capital. You claim to be against a police state and against top-down organisation? If this is true - and I'm not convinced it is - then why not do away with your romantic affectations and say you are merely a perfectly uninspired man with some pronounced and savage jealousies towards narrow sections of the populace? You are not a communist. You are a lazy serial killer.

[lord of flies]

Like I said, this thread might as well be entitled 'Ask me about Fascism.'

 

All play nicely with the wordy authoritarian, but I'm out of this thread.

Actually, fascism is nothing like communism, and is in many ways its opposite. Since you're leaving, I'll only briefly recommend that you read a bit about the Kronstadt uprising, and remember that the men involved were some of the fiercest communists the world had ever seen.

Have you ever assessed, planned, and implemented a campaign of investment? No. I thought not.

Keep firing off those assumptions about me, maybe one day you'll get one right.

I am quite happy to criticise people who are doing non-jobs which could as easily be done by machines, and in many cases are. But you have the typical mendicant's disregard for how hard management is. I know a couple of self-made millionaires who you would regard as having got rich off the sweat of others. I would argue instead that they ensured the others found application for their sweat IN ADDITION to sweating, worrying, and fuming themselves. A really top class manager and organiser adds value to everyone around him. He is a multiplier of others.

Hmm, except investors aren't paid because of the work they do in finding out what's worth investing in or organizing things properly. They're paid for having money. That is the difference.

You say you are not against inequality, or democracy, or private capital. You claim to be against a police state and against top-down organisation? If this is true - and I'm not convinced it is - then why not do away with your romantic affectations and say you are merely a perfectly uninspired man with some pronounced and savage jealousies towards narrow sections of the populace? You are not a communist. You are a lazy serial killer.

Depends on your definition of "private capital;" I certainly wouldn't use the term to describe it. As to the charge of being "a lazy serial killer:" please, don't strain yourself trying to be as cool as me; it won't work.

[213374U]

What about compared to, say, 1922 figures, you know, the same figures that a White Russia would have had to deal with?

Yeah, good idea! Let's compare figures from the worst of the Russian civil war and after the disastrous famine of 1921 to the same indicators a decade later. That way, figures might support your theories. Only they are based on unverifiable suppositions of alternate historical scenarios. Way to go, professor.

 

 

Okay, let's see the Russian Federation project forces or serious influence anywhere that it doesn't have a direct land border to. Or let's see it seriously compete with the United States in technical developments. Or how about we see it get the number of people living under the poverty line back to pre-collapse levels. GDP isn't a number you can just hurl at someone and say "look! everything is better now!" It's a meaningless number that represents only the fact that a specific amount of fiat currency is used in that nation's economy. Also, that's GDP, not GDP per capita, and it compares the Soviet Union to the Former Soviet Union. Oops!

Let's see the Soviet Union project forces or serious influence anywhere that it doesn't have a direct land border to. Oh, um... that's right. It doesn't exist anymore, as it failed both as a cohesive political entity and an economic alternative to the capitalist West. If the Soviet bloc ever held (the illusion of) true force projection, it was by means of a military spending that it could not sustain in the long run. So who lost the arms race?

 

Anyway, don't ask me to do your homework for you. You asked for a comparison between the Russian Federation and the USSR... which is nuts. But there are also GDP per capita figures in the page I linked to (or adjacent), and they all show economic recovery past Soviet era levels.

 

 

Deng is a capitalist. I don't know if you knew this, so I thought I'd remind you.

Thanks for the heads up. You never know when a useless piece of trivia might be just what you need.

[Oner]

Thanks for the heads up. You never know when a useless piece of trivia might be just what you need.

QFT.

[Killian Kalthorne]

I have read an article in the local newspaper today that Communist government of China is going out of their way to make life miserable for the civil rights lawyers in their country. These are people who seek to have their clients be treated equally and fairly in regard to basic human rights. I have to ask why is Communists so afraid of people having basic civil liberties? Unlike the US where you can voice an opinion against the government or be part of a religious organization, the Communists of China are afraid of giving such freedoms to their own people. Why is that Lord of Flies? Why are communists afraid of freedom and basic human rights?

[Pidesco]

Here's a question fo LoF:

 

In what specific ways was the Soviet Union a Marxist country?

[Moose]

I have read an article in the local newspaper today that Communist government of China is going out of their way to make life miserable for the civil rights lawyers in their country. These are people who seek to have their clients be treated equally and fairly in regard to basic human rights. I have to ask why is Communists so afraid of people having basic civil liberties? Unlike the US where you can voice an opinion against the government or be part of a religious organization, the Communists of China are afraid of giving such freedoms to their own people. Why is that Lord of Flies? Why are communists afraid of freedom and basic human rights?

 

I guess they don't want to end up like America, where you have this annoying business of having more than one party to vote for. Gets in the way of running the country when you have to constantly campaign for re-election.

 

In China they have this fantastic near utopian system where a perfect party that only has the nations interest in mind, filled with the best and brightest have full control and so the lucky citizens of China don't have to burden themselves with listening to silly political debates constantly - all their thinking can be done for them by experts carefully chosen by the government. This leaves them to concentrate on more important things like building super fast rail networks. It sounds like paradise.

Edited December 11, 2009 by Moose

[lord of flies]

I have read an article in the local newspaper today that Communist government of China is going out of their way to make life miserable for the civil rights lawyers in their country. These are people who seek to have their clients be treated equally and fairly in regard to basic human rights. I have to ask why is Communists so afraid of people having basic civil liberties? Unlike the US where you can voice an opinion against the government or be part of a religious organization, the Communists of China are afraid of giving such freedoms to their own people. Why is that Lord of Flies? Why are communists afraid of freedom and basic human rights?

I dunno, Deng's band sound more like fascists to be quite honest. Though I do have to remind you that the US' civil rights record is hardly stainless, e.g. COINTELPRO.

Yeah, good idea! Let's compare figures from the worst of the Russian civil war and after the disastrous famine of 1921 to the same indicators a decade later. That way, figures might support your theories. Only they are based on unverifiable suppositions of alternate historical scenarios. Way to go, professor.

Yes, let's compare figures after serious damage had been done to the Russian economy (through no fault of the Bolsheviks) instead of figures a decade prior. Or, heck, let's recognize the fact that Russia was an agricultural society with a serious development problem and the Soviet state put together a cohesive plan to pull it out of the ground and make it a modern industrial society.

Let's see the Soviet Union project forces or serious influence anywhere that it doesn't have a direct land border to. Oh, um... that's right. It doesn't exist anymore, as it failed both as a cohesive political entity and an economic alternative to the capitalist West. If the Soviet bloc ever held (the illusion of) true force projection, it was by means of a military spending that it could not sustain in the long run. So who lost the arms race?

Okay, look, I'm going to make this quick:

1) The Soviet Union collapsed not because of some problem with its economic or political system, but because of the August Coup. You don't build a economic or political system that survives seven decades by doing it poorly.

2) The Soviet bloc could maintain their military spending more or less indefinitely; that was always how Russia managed its international affairs.

Thanks for the heads up. You never know when a useless piece of trivia might be just what you need.

lol I love this. It's hilarious when capitalists pretend like capitalism is irrelevant to them, politically or socially. You show me one example, post-1945, where the United States took a hard line against a right-wing authoritarian group taking over from a left-wing democratic one.

In what specific ways was the Soviet Union a Marxist country?

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children

Edited December 11, 2009 by Fionavar

[213374U]

Boy, this feels like telling a child that Santa isn't real.

 

 

Yes, let's compare figures after serious damage had been done to the Russian economy (through no fault of the Bolsheviks) instead of figures a decade prior. Or, heck, let's recognize the fact that Russia was an agricultural society with a serious development problem and the Soviet state put together a cohesive plan to pull it out of the ground and make it a modern industrial society.

That makes no sense. Of course post-war figures are going to be better than the same indicators during wartime, reflecting the natural reconstruction after a period of civil war. How does that prove that communism is good as anything but an excuse for establishing a mass-murdering kleptocracy?

 

 

 

1) The Soviet Union collapsed not because of some problem with its economic or political system, but because of the August Coup. You don't build a economic or political system that survives seven decades by doing it poorly.

No, you do it by suppressing civil liberties and employing genocide and the secret state police liberally to quell any political dissent. And even so, the balance is pretty poor. 70 years? You're kidding, right? The Roman Empire alone lasted for five centuries. The British Empire, four centuries... and so forth. The Soviet Union sucked as a superpower, mate.

 

The August Coup was simply the strand that broke the camel's back. Economic decline, widespread popular disillusion with the regime and the ever-present nationalisms meant that the fall was a matter of time. The coup evidenced the political infighting present in the system, and the weakness of the Soviet leadership.

 

 

2) The Soviet bloc could maintain their military spending more or less indefinitely; that was always how Russia managed its international affairs.

Man, for a supposed expert on the topic, you really know jack about this. Okay, pay attention now. History lesson, free of charge. One-time chance only.

 

The truth is that good ol' USSR was facing economic woes even before the US actively pursued a policy of economic strangulation against it. The two main sources of hard currency for the Soviet Union during the 70's and 80's were weapons and oil sales. Owing to the falling oil prices after the 1973 crisis, Soviet revenues fell sharply - and given that its main customers in the weapons market were other countries with oil-based economies, this meant trouble. So they had to resort to borrowing from the rich capitalist West to get things rolling. Can you imagine it? Commies knee-deep in debt, getting extra-low interest rates for their loans. It's funny because it's true.

 

Pretty picture, don't you think? But it gets better: enter Afghanistan. In 1980, Soviet gold exports amounted to 90 tons. But by 1981, they had increased to a whopping 250 tons... perhaps to counteract the oil debacle? Anyhow, the US were apparently sick of the Cold War, so they wanted it over. And to this end, they enacted economic sanctions of very much needed goods for the commies: first Carter instituted a fertilizer and cereal embargo. And later Reagan delivered the coup de grace by blocking the sale of American made parts and materials for the Europe-Siberia gasoduct, and extending the ban to materials built under American license in Europe. Needless to say, the vaunted Soviet technical expertise was called into action to deal with this emergency. The result was a catastrophic crash and burn. The consequences were that the European gas market was pretty much denied to the Soviets, to which they reacted by flooding the market with oil... which further drove prices down.

 

But the game wasn't over yet. In 1985, Saudi oil production was 2M barrels per day. In 1986, about 10M. Oil prices had plummeted from about 33 dollars a barrel to 8-10 IN A SINGLE YEAR. By 1986, when Bush Sr. finally got his way to stabilize oil prices, Moscow was on its knees. Glasnost, Perestroika, etc. We all know how well that worked.

 

And, in a nutshell, that's how the United States destroyed the Soviet Union. So no, they couldn't "maintain their military spending more or less indefinitely", at all.

 

 

https://www.policyarchive.org/bitstream/han....pdf?sequence=1

http://multinationalmonitor.org/hyper/issu...w-robinson.html

Edited December 11, 2009 by 213374U

[Walsingham]

Numers just owned you.

[Pidesco]

He does that.

[lord of flies]

That makes no sense. Of course post-war figures are going to be better than the same indicators during wartime, reflecting the natural reconstruction after a period of civil war. How does that prove that communism is good as anything but an excuse for establishing a mass-murdering kleptocracy?

Uh, actually, the current government in Russia is a mass-murdering kleptocracy, not the previous one. Just a little FYI.

 

No, you do it by suppressing civil liberties and employing genocide and the secret state police liberally to quell any political dissent. And even so, the balance is pretty poor. 70 years? You're kidding, right? The Roman Empire alone lasted for five centuries. The British Empire, four centuries... and so forth. The Soviet Union sucked as a superpower, mate.

Hmm, okay, here, how many governments do you think lasted seventy years in the 20th century? Germany... nope. France... nope. Japan... nope. Spain... nope. Portugal... nope. Italy... nope. Talking about governments that existed in barbarian land like the British Empire or the Roman Empire is irrelevant, and you should know better.

The August Coup was simply the strand that broke the camel's back. Economic decline, widespread popular disillusion with the regime and the ever-present nationalisms meant that the fall was a matter of time. The coup evidenced the political infighting present in the system, and the weakness of the Soviet leadership.

Actually, the coup destabilized the Soviet Union to the point that it could break apart. The reason why it did so wasn't "ever present nationalisms," it's not like people in the "core" of the USSR (e.g. Belarus, Central Asia) really wanted their own states. It was simply that people didn't expect it to fall apart, so they didn't do anything.

Man, for a supposed expert on the topic, you really know jack about this. Okay, pay attention now. History lesson, free of charge. One-time chance only.

 

The truth is that good ol' USSR was facing economic woes even before the US actively pursued a policy of economic strangulation against it. The two main sources of hard currency for the Soviet Union during the 70's and 80's were weapons and oil sales. Owing to the falling oil prices after the 1973 crisis, Soviet revenues fell sharply - and given that its main customers in the weapons market were other countries with oil-based economies, this meant trouble. So they had to resort to borrowing from the rich capitalist West to get things rolling. Can you imagine it? Commies knee-deep in debt, getting extra-low interest rates for their loans. It's funny because it's true.

 

Pretty picture, don't you think? But it gets better: enter Afghanistan. In 1980, Soviet gold exports amounted to 90 tons. But by 1981, they had increased to a whopping 250 tons... perhaps to counteract the oil debacle? Anyhow, the US were apparently sick of the Cold War, so they wanted it over. And to this end, they enacted economic sanctions of very much needed goods for the commies: first Carter instituted a fertilizer and cereal embargo. And later Reagan delivered the coup de grace by blocking the sale of American made parts and materials for the Europe-Siberia gasoduct, and extending the ban to materials built under American license in Europe. Needless to say, the vaunted Soviet technical expertise was called into action to deal with this emergency. The result was a catastrophic crash and burn. The consequences were that the European gas market was pretty much denied to the Soviets, to which they reacted by flooding the market with oil... which further drove prices down.

 

But the game wasn't over yet. In 1985, Saudi oil production was 2M barrels per day. In 1986, about 10M. Oil prices had plummeted from about 33 dollars a barrel to 8-10 IN A SINGLE YEAR. By 1986, when Bush Sr. finally got his way to stabilize oil prices, Moscow was on its knees. Glasnost, Perestroika, etc. We all know how well that worked.

 

And, in a nutshell, that's how the United States destroyed the Soviet Union. So no, they couldn't "maintain their military spending more or less indefinitely", at all.

lol, yeah, massive draft armies rely on good economies. Thanks for the tip. The Soviet Union and Russia maintained huge draft based armies through all of this somehow. You can try to resort to your moon bat logic where a bad economy means a bad military, but it won't work on this guy. Please avoid such massive red herrings, all the words in the world don't disguise them from me.

Numers just owned you.

Wrong again.

[Killian Kalthorne]

You still haven't answered my questions, LoF.

[lord of flies]

You still haven't answered my questions, LoF.

Why are communist dictators afraid of civil rights? Because all leaders are afraid of civil rights.