Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Better USSR (alt. history)

    Share

    Walther von Oldenburg
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 894
    Points : 951
    Join date : 2015-01-23
    Age : 25
    Location : Oldenburg

    Better USSR (alt. history)

    Post  Walther von Oldenburg on Tue Feb 24, 2015 12:07 pm

    There are several plausible historical scenerios leading to a better 20th century Russia. I want to concentrate on an alternative USSR.

    What about such a scenerio?
    1. Stalin comes to power but he follows Lenin's recommendations that New Economic Policy should stay for at least several decades (it does not matter why he does not revoke it - may even be a quantum fluctuation altering his mind). The Great Patriotic War follows the same course as it did but standard of living is less affected and it's recovery is faster after the war. Other communist countries follow the same model of economy.
    2. After Stalin's death in 1953, Khrushchev comes to power and in mid and late 1950s he introduces minor economic reforms - inspired by NEP's success.

    ... and I have no idea what might've happened next. The goal is to have China-style reforms early or mid 1960s and further reforms in 1970s and 1980s. Trade policy should stay the same - a closed economic system within the communist block, with minimal exports and imports to countries outside the bloc.

    Any ideas?

    KomissarBojanchev
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 986
    Points : 1139
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 19
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: Better USSR (alt. history)

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Tue Feb 24, 2015 1:48 pm

    1. Stalin listens to his spies and strengthens his border in 1941 quickly thwarting operation barbarossa and thus without the massive nazi genocide and pillaging the USSR becomes the absolute world power and the capitalist powers and anticommunist crusade type imperialism quickly lose popularity.

    2. Stalin lives into the 60s and instead of focusing on an isolationist MAD based policy like khruschev builds a massive blue water fleet and with it's help topples many right wing juntas, thwarts almost all CIA backed coup attempts or NATO invasions around the world and in much of the americas thus stopping economic isolation and getting the upper hand in the cold war. Stalin also wises up and reforms the government to be non noncorrupt and nonbureaucratic. democratic true marxist leninist government. USSR and china stay allied so china gets far more technologicly advanced thus accelarating its economic and military power and the 2 countries together form the most powerful most socially fair power in the world ushering a new age of socialism where the bourgoisie no longer has all the financial and political power, and the working class has meaningful influence.

    3. The 1905 revolution is succesful and a democratuc USSR is formed with the various anticapitalist parties fighting over influence in elections thus causing certain inefficiency. Nevertheless with intelligent technocratic and realistic rule, the USSR doesn't participate in WW1, so it doesn't lose poland(it becomes a loyal soviet republic) and the baltics(there is much less antirussian sentiment there) , nor massive economic and military losses. and instead strengthens in the 1920s to completely crush japan and making it a socialist satellite. Into the 30s it becomes the the premier most supported, technologically and militarily(this uSSR focuses more on naval strength due to a feeling for revenge from teh tsushima defeat) advanced nation on earth, fights several wars with the united western colonial empires, wins them and frees much of the world from anglosaxon bourgois slavery and exploitation. By the 21st century this USSR ushers a new age of united world socialism where ideologies such as economic liberalism, monarchism, all religions and social darwinism are very unpopular.

    KoTeMoRe
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3547
    Points : 3582
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Re: Better USSR (alt. history)

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Tue Apr 28, 2015 6:22 am

    Walther von Oldenburg wrote:There are several plausible historical scenerios leading to a better 20th century Russia. I want to concentrate on an alternative USSR.

    What about such a scenerio?
    1. Stalin comes to power but he follows Lenin's recommendations that New Economic Policy should stay for at least several decades (it does not matter why he does not revoke it - may even be a quantum fluctuation altering his mind). The Great Patriotic War follows the same course as it did but standard of living is less affected and it's recovery is faster after the war. Other communist countries follow  the same model of economy.
    2. After Stalin's death in 1953, Khrushchev comes to power and in mid and late 1950s he introduces minor economic reforms - inspired by NEP's success.

    ... and I have no idea what might've happened next. The goal is to have China-style reforms  early or mid 1960s and further reforms in 1970s and 1980s. Trade policy should stay the same - a closed economic system within the communist block, with minimal exports and imports to countries outside the bloc.

    Any ideas?
    *In the following I'll use Russia and SSSR unvariably of their meaning at the time. sorry for the confusion.


    NEP would have exhausted the SSSR on the long term. The primarily agricultural nation that what Russia then, had three flaws.

    a. It's main exports are raw materials and agricultural products.
    b. Those are affected under typical Market consideration by the terms of trade. Badly. So while Russia could have exported its grain and ore for a good price initially, the terms of exchange would have worsened to imports, since Russia was in dire need of modernization.
    c. That modernization leads to a urban exodus, inevitably. One that is far less controllable with the NEP and hurts the basis of the NEP as follows. As the terms of exchange worsen for the raw material exporters in favour of high value goods (look at today) and substitution takes time, Russia would have slowly needed more people to both work at the fields and become workers. This is the typical paradox of transforming economies. It is often solved by a mix of population growth and gradual modernization of the agriculture and/or bigger import penetration to sustain the needs of the population.
    d. Then you have the balancing of the market. If the NEP works for the farmers, the industry will raise its prices to keep up the revenue, plus political pressure to perform. Why work in factory when you earn more by working on a farm?

    You have then to take in account the Soviet nature, it is a socialist country and has VERY little room to breathe internationally. This was evident at the Genoa Conference when the Allies asked the SSSR to pay the Imperial pre-war debt. In lieu, the Soviets went on to sign the Rapallo treaty that would ultimately be very beneficial the Germany and the SSSR, but that would show the limits of a raw material exporter scheme for modernization overtime.

    Now the SSSR wasn't a desert, it had brains and potential, but with the NEP the transition would have been longer and probably as (or even more chaotic).

    While criminal, the dekulakisation was a product of the NEP "shortcomings" and helped stifle dissent and reorganize a Russian traditional country that had not moved since the early 20th century.

    Furthermore the Georgian MOFO had this illumination about the 1929 crisis that contributed to the aura, big mustache would have among intellectuals. Bukharin fell of his chair during Black Thursday and Tuesday. Literally. So no, the NEP was a dead end, Stalin knew it, it wasn't a politically viable option for the Soviet leadership. And it would have aggravated the cost of modernization overtime. Dutch disease redux...

    On the Chinese reforms during the 70's, how can you have a Chinese styled reform while your potential big investor is your biggest challenger and declared enemy. Furthermore, how would you like to develop the said reforms if your EcoPol is about Close Circuitry? China made that quantum leap in late 70's because the Chinese geared towards a State controlled economy serving as an export base, earning hard cash.

    Russia never ever tried so by playing with oil prices. Even when it could in the early 70's. This was a mistake and a costly one. Soviets playing nice with the capitalist pigs during oil crisis in 73 would have eased some tensions and MAYBE allowed some Chinese style reforming and investment....

    type055
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 103
    Points : 110
    Join date : 2014-09-03

    Re: Better USSR (alt. history)

    Post  type055 on Tue May 05, 2015 11:17 am

    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    Walther von Oldenburg wrote:There are several plausible historical scenerios leading to a better 20th century Russia. I want to concentrate on an alternative USSR.

    What about such a scenerio?
    1. Stalin comes to power but he follows Lenin's recommendations that New Economic Policy should stay for at least several decades (it does not matter why he does not revoke it - may even be a quantum fluctuation altering his mind). The Great Patriotic War follows the same course as it did but standard of living is less affected and it's recovery is faster after the war. Other communist countries follow  the same model of economy.
    2. After Stalin's death in 1953, Khrushchev comes to power and in mid and late 1950s he introduces minor economic reforms - inspired by NEP's success.

    ... and I have no idea what might've happened next. The goal is to have China-style reforms  early or mid 1960s and further reforms in 1970s and 1980s. Trade policy should stay the same - a closed economic system within the communist block, with minimal exports and imports to countries outside the bloc.

    Any ideas?
    *In the following I'll use Russia and SSSR unvariably of their meaning at the time. sorry for the confusion.


    NEP would have exhausted the SSSR on the long term. The primarily agricultural nation that what Russia then, had three flaws.

    a. It's main exports are raw materials and agricultural products.
    b. Those are affected under typical Market consideration by the terms of trade. Badly. So while Russia could have exported its grain and ore for a good price initially, the terms of exchange would have worsened to imports, since Russia was in dire need of modernization.
    c. That modernization leads to a urban exodus, inevitably. One that is far less controllable with the NEP and hurts the basis of the NEP as follows. As the terms of exchange worsen for the raw material exporters in favour of high value goods (look at today) and substitution takes time, Russia would have slowly needed more people to both work at the fields and become workers. This is the typical paradox of transforming economies. It is often solved by a mix of population growth and gradual modernization of the agriculture and/or bigger import penetration to sustain the needs of the population.
    d. Then you have the balancing of the market. If the NEP works for the farmers, the industry will raise its prices to keep up the revenue, plus political pressure to perform. Why work in factory when you earn more by working on a farm?

    You have then to take in account the Soviet nature, it is a socialist country and has VERY little room to breathe internationally. This was evident at the Genoa Conference when the Allies asked the SSSR to pay the Imperial pre-war debt. In lieu, the Soviets went on to sign the Rapallo treaty that would ultimately be very beneficial the Germany and the SSSR, but that would show the limits of a raw material exporter scheme for modernization overtime.

    Now the SSSR wasn't a desert, it had brains and potential, but with the NEP the transition would have been longer and probably as (or even more chaotic).

    While criminal, the dekulakisation was a product of the NEP "shortcomings" and helped stifle dissent and reorganize a Russian traditional country that had not moved since the early 20th century.

    Furthermore the Georgian MOFO had this illumination about the 1929 crisis that contributed to the aura, big mustache would have among intellectuals. Bukharin fell of his chair during Black Thursday and Tuesday. Literally. So no, the NEP was a dead end, Stalin knew it, it wasn't a politically viable option for the Soviet leadership. And it would have aggravated the cost of modernization overtime. Dutch disease redux...

    On the Chinese reforms during the 70's, how can you have a Chinese styled reform while your potential big investor is your biggest challenger and declared enemy. Furthermore, how would you like to develop the said reforms if your EcoPol is about Close Circuitry? China made that quantum leap in late 70's because the Chinese geared towards a State controlled economy serving as an export base, earning hard cash.

    Russia never ever tried so by playing with oil prices. Even when it could in the early 70's. This was a mistake and a costly one. Soviets playing nice with the capitalist pigs during oil crisis in 73 would have eased some tensions and MAYBE allowed some Chinese style reforming and investment....
    In 1970s Russia and China were enemy, they both put millions of troops along the border. When China start economy reform, USSR call it revisionism. The nature of capitalism is to chase profit maximization. It has a possibilty other countries will invest Russia.
    Maybe Chinese style econmy reform don't fit Russia. But I think USSR should reform gradually like China.

    KoTeMoRe
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3547
    Points : 3582
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Re: Better USSR (alt. history)

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Tue May 05, 2015 11:46 am

    type055 wrote:
    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    Walther von Oldenburg wrote:There are several plausible historical scenerios leading to a better 20th century Russia. I want to concentrate on an alternative USSR.

    What about such a scenerio?
    1. Stalin comes to power but he follows Lenin's recommendations that New Economic Policy should stay for at least several decades (it does not matter why he does not revoke it - may even be a quantum fluctuation altering his mind). The Great Patriotic War follows the same course as it did but standard of living is less affected and it's recovery is faster after the war. Other communist countries follow  the same model of economy.
    2. After Stalin's death in 1953, Khrushchev comes to power and in mid and late 1950s he introduces minor economic reforms - inspired by NEP's success.

    ... and I have no idea what might've happened next. The goal is to have China-style reforms  early or mid 1960s and further reforms in 1970s and 1980s. Trade policy should stay the same - a closed economic system within the communist block, with minimal exports and imports to countries outside the bloc.

    Any ideas?
    *In the following I'll use Russia and SSSR unvariably of their meaning at the time. sorry for the confusion.


    NEP would have exhausted the SSSR on the long term. The primarily agricultural nation that what Russia then, had three flaws.

    a. It's main exports are raw materials and agricultural products.
    b. Those are affected under typical Market consideration by the terms of trade. Badly. So while Russia could have exported its grain and ore for a good price initially, the terms of exchange would have worsened to imports, since Russia was in dire need of modernization.
    c. That modernization leads to a urban exodus, inevitably. One that is far less controllable with the NEP and hurts the basis of the NEP as follows. As the terms of exchange worsen for the raw material exporters in favour of high value goods (look at today) and substitution takes time, Russia would have slowly needed more people to both work at the fields and become workers. This is the typical paradox of transforming economies. It is often solved by a mix of population growth and gradual modernization of the agriculture and/or bigger import penetration to sustain the needs of the population.
    d. Then you have the balancing of the market. If the NEP works for the farmers, the industry will raise its prices to keep up the revenue, plus political pressure to perform. Why work in factory when you earn more by working on a farm?

    You have then to take in account the Soviet nature, it is a socialist country and has VERY little room to breathe internationally. This was evident at the Genoa Conference when the Allies asked the SSSR to pay the Imperial pre-war debt. In lieu, the Soviets went on to sign the Rapallo treaty that would ultimately be very beneficial the Germany and the SSSR, but that would show the limits of a raw material exporter scheme for modernization overtime.

    Now the SSSR wasn't a desert, it had brains and potential, but with the NEP the transition would have been longer and probably as (or even more chaotic).

    While criminal, the dekulakisation was a product of the NEP "shortcomings" and helped stifle dissent and reorganize a Russian traditional country that had not moved since the early 20th century.

    Furthermore the Georgian MOFO had this illumination about the 1929 crisis that contributed to the aura, big mustache would have among intellectuals. Bukharin fell of his chair during Black Thursday and Tuesday. Literally. So no, the NEP was a dead end, Stalin knew it, it wasn't a politically viable option for the Soviet leadership. And it would have aggravated the cost of modernization overtime. Dutch disease redux...

    On the Chinese reforms during the 70's, how can you have a Chinese styled reform while your potential big investor is your biggest challenger and declared enemy. Furthermore, how would you like to develop the said reforms if your EcoPol is about Close Circuitry? China made that quantum leap in late 70's because the Chinese geared towards a State controlled economy serving as an export base, earning hard cash.

    Russia never ever tried so by playing with oil prices. Even when it could in the early 70's. This was a mistake and a costly one. Soviets playing nice with the capitalist pigs during oil crisis in 73 would have eased some tensions and MAYBE allowed some Chinese style reforming and investment....
    In 1970s Russia and China were enemy, they both put millions of  troops along the border. When China start economy reform, USSR call it revisionism.  The nature of capitalism is to chase profit maximization. It has a possibilty other countries will invest Russia.
    Maybe Chinese style econmy reform don't fit Russia.  But I think  USSR should reform gradually like China.

    Again, this wasn't possible then. The "reforms" were basically a carrot that the West used towards the PRC with the belief that it would, as some point not only back the West against the USSR, but also drop the CCP and become "normal". This for a range of reasons failed and here we are.

    But back to the topic. As I said, the USSR couldn't have been the "alternative", because it was the MAIN enemy. The Chinese gamble, the DFI's, the loans, the gradual barrier lifting, the thaw that happened during the Carter administration up to the death of Deng Xiao Ping (albeit there was the Tien An Men stall politically) were all an experiment that is turning awry. It has to be a rare occasion, that the big dog in international policy empowers its successor this way.

    So the USSR could not have transformed like China, because unlike China it had attained the same bottleneck than the Western States it was opposing. It had created a middle class, which was stalling. The Soviet middle class, very large compared to the Western one, was actually far more privileged on statute than the western one.

    I'll leave this here to understand, that what the Soviet state did, was as crazy as absurdly wonderful. Through, blood, tears and hatred, it elevated TOO MANY people to a condition that couldn't be afforded in the same time with an Arms Race, a quasi imperialistic foreign policy and a very problematic supply and distribution chain.

    http://www.eurozine.com/articles/2002-08-30-turovskaya-en.html

    In other words, the Soviet Union had become an Utopia for the best and worst reasons. None of this in China, that was massively rural. So the only possible exit for a non-Perestroïka USSR would have been to flog the country with Kossigyn reforms on steroids, actually embrace the Prague spring and control it, instead of killing it. It was very easy to do so. Central Europe was going to hurt Western Europe anyway with lower cost and an equally qualified manpower. Trade barriers would have done the rest and those countries would have lagged behind all the same like now.

    The Prague spring was a lost opportunity and it effectively alienated the whole Central European countries from the USSR. For good.

    Having lived in a shithole of a system compared to the Soviet one, I thoroughly find myself at the description. It is something that is dying, difference. Daring to be different is dying in the world. And ironically it isn't Communism that is killing it.

    victor1985
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 852
    Points : 901
    Join date : 2015-01-02

    Re: Better USSR (alt. history)

    Post  victor1985 on Thu May 07, 2015 9:14 am

    There is a problem whit communism. The top leaders are lied by the 2nd line in the party for not risk they job and security. Thus important thruth does not come to leaders so they cant change important things. In the same way ordinary population report false things to their superiors so they keep their jobs too. So in the entire comunist nation all is behind lies. An alternative urss would be that where is a better comunication lack of fear of people to leaders and correct reports about economics. The against party mentality would be banned but capability at place of work would be just a matter of force of the people. If they cant do best job well no uppset just relocate to another job. No prison for them.

    KoTeMoRe
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3547
    Points : 3582
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Re: Better USSR (alt. history)

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Thu May 07, 2015 9:35 am

    victor1985 wrote:There is a problem whit communism. The top leaders are lied by the 2nd line in the party for not risk they job and security. Thus important thruth does not come to leaders so they cant change important things. In the same way ordinary population report false things to their superiors so they keep their jobs too. So in the entire comunist nation all is behind lies. An alternative urss would be that where is a better comunication lack of fear of people to leaders and correct reports about economics. The against party mentality would be banned but capability at place of work would be just a matter of force of the people. If they cant do best job well no uppset just relocate to another job. No prison for them.

    Which actually is a systemic flaw of our current capitalist system...Under communism you had 'fear' although it was relative. Under Capitalism lies and credibility are off the charts and fear isn't the cause. Greed is.

    There a whole industry within the banking sector that specializes into tax fraud and fiscal evasion.
    There is a whole industry in the Audit sector that specializes (Andersen fiasco) into book cooking.
    There is a whole industry into the political sector that specializes into mass theft, lies and propaganda, it's called the parliament.

    Lies in the Soviet system were indeed worrisome, because the system was closed circuit, the State lied to itself. Those who said they weren't the state, actually were more of the state, than the leaders themselves. Conflicting ethics was indeed a big issue back then, but it hasn't changed at all today. While the people lie to themselves.

    When looking closely, the only difference, is that the state and private property are decoupled in the current world de jure, while de facto it isn't true. So indeed certain lies can be sheltered, because they don't hit everyone equally.

    For instance the losses from the 2007 subprime crisis were roughly 3 trillion in six months (plus other trillions in market value), that's effing 2 years of 1989 CCCP GDP. This is the damn reality, this is why people lie, not to keep their JOB, but to keep their other lies.

    The Soviet system had this very sobering effect, that it showed you what the reality was, you+your hands were needed by the system. While here there is this insanity about how you can be free and do WHAT you want, while the fact is that you are not even needed.

    So there is a lot of revisionism about fear in the USSR and many WP countries, but the reality is that the System, was merely covering for personal shortcomings. It simply was a veneer over the real people, one that kept them from going at each other's throats.

    victor1985
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 852
    Points : 901
    Join date : 2015-01-02

    Re: Better USSR (alt. history)

    Post  victor1985 on Thu May 07, 2015 12:17 pm

    Poi t is in capitalism all they try to hit each others. So is hard to lie all. This is whi all fall. From time to time some big ones are discover. So the society clean itself. In communism there isnt even a partial solution to lies. When all are free first they ask themselfs who lies me. So....even that parliament has problems. They cant keep lying. Somethimes the truth reach surface. And the point is some journalists cant lie and their job because what government do hit them too. So...we have some brave jurnalists that see the truth and share him whit the people to get help from them. Point is nobody cares about ordinary people. They let them to be stupid. They just need teir work and money. If population isnt smart enough they cant do much thing.

    victor1985
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 852
    Points : 901
    Join date : 2015-01-02

    Re: Better USSR (alt. history)

    Post  victor1985 on Thu May 07, 2015 12:21 pm

    Some to do a equilibrum speak whit those stupid people and wake them up and give them a cause to fight for. So as a politician in western countryes you are never secure.

    KoTeMoRe
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3547
    Points : 3582
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Re: Better USSR (alt. history)

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Thu May 07, 2015 12:42 pm

    victor1985 wrote:Poi t is in capitalism all they try to hit each others. So is hard to lie all. This is whi all fall. From time to time some big ones are discover. So the society clean itself. In communism there isnt even a partial solution to lies. When all are free first they ask themselfs who lies me. So....even that parliament has problems. They cant keep lying. Somethimes the truth reach surface. And the point is some journalists cant lie and their job because what government do hit them too. So...we have some brave jurnalists that see the truth and share him whit the people to get help from them. Point is nobody cares about ordinary people. They let them to be stupid. They just need teir work and money. If population isnt smart enough they cant do much thing.

    How does society clean itself? It simply doesn't, that's why you have historical rifts, that's why you have cyclical phenomena that evolve into greater, extended trends.
    Communism, is such a manifestation. Communism is the attempt to clean society, it failed in practice, as a global cure, but then, we have "leaner" and more ad hoc cures being proposed. Militant islamism for muslims (No i'm not talking about BS Jihadi Muktar decapitating people). I'm talking about the deep resentment that the Muslim world is brewing against the Western World.

    And it goes no where.

    History is a consequence of the fact that society can't clean itself the way it should. As Marx told, Equilibrium is an exceptional state.

    victor1985
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 852
    Points : 901
    Join date : 2015-01-02

    Re: Better USSR (alt. history)

    Post  victor1985 on Thu May 07, 2015 1:11 pm

    Its like this: everyone want to be free, noone want a supreme leader, all are fighting against the leader and anyone that after the supreme leader wants to rule the world. The majority always coallise against minor but powerfull. In this all ask themselfs: what we do after the supreme leader? The answer is to share from one to another.

    victor1985
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 852
    Points : 901
    Join date : 2015-01-02

    Re: Better USSR (alt. history)

    Post  victor1985 on Thu May 07, 2015 1:29 pm

    Notice that in the supreme leader antourage noone likes to be second in chief. When things go too ugly even for those that are second after the boss they leave the supreme leader alone. Same mechanism will be in smaller groups formed after the fall of supreme leader. Cause everyone has a limit at wich they support dictatorship.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15445
    Points : 16152
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Better USSR (alt. history)

    Post  GarryB on Fri May 08, 2015 11:32 am

    Everyone supports a dictatorship when everything is going OK and the economy is good.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    whir
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 809
    Points : 848
    Join date : 2015-04-27

    Re: Better USSR (alt. history)

    Post  whir on Fri May 08, 2015 12:16 pm

    GarryB wrote:Everyone supports a dictatorship when everything is going OK and the economy is good.
    That applies to every imaginable form of government.

    victor1985
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 852
    Points : 901
    Join date : 2015-01-02

    Re: Better USSR (alt. history)

    Post  victor1985 on Fri May 08, 2015 8:24 pm

    GarryB wrote:Everyone supports a dictatorship when everything is going OK and the economy is good.
    Well yes. That is why i ask myself why people steal things in communism when they experience communism at start. Is the nature of human. Better said communists are truly visionary.

    victor1985
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 852
    Points : 901
    Join date : 2015-01-02

    Re: Better USSR (alt. history)

    Post  victor1985 on Fri Jun 05, 2015 7:08 am

    The problem is like this: those who know to make money dont want to share their fortune whit poor. Because of this they always betraye communism. But....when money are equally spent to everybody all people have a chance to evolve so productivity in yhe future rise. One thing is that only few people evolve and go to universe other is that all go in the same time. If all go there is higher chance to resist to unknown. Also some studyes should be made upon productivity increase when all people have same amount of money. After all when all have the posibility to evolve they all work. That means all produce so produce lots of yhings compared to few that produce. At start everything is equal but noone should not upset because the rise will be big in near future.

    victor1985
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 852
    Points : 901
    Join date : 2015-01-02

    Re: Better USSR (alt. history)

    Post  victor1985 on Fri Jun 05, 2015 7:19 am

    More money per capita is mean a lot of personal experiences and evolve posibilities. Now some efficinecy and work distribution study should be made when all people are employed. My opinion is that at start comunism produce less than capitalism but when all are hired all have a oportunity to become better. And becoming better means production get better. And because is a closed money sistem no money is lost. But all come back to state who make logic distribution. As a matter of fact should be a law that anyone is forced to spend money not keep them. So things are buy and money go back to factoryes even if a employee is unskilled.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Better USSR (alt. history)

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 10:36 am


      Current date/time is Sat Dec 03, 2016 10:36 am