Opinions on Socialism/Communism

The Soviet socialist model was in reality a state capitalism wrapped up in the Utopian communist ideology derived from the outdated German Marxism. They achieved a lot but couldn't avoid the implosion in 1991.
China got rid of the communist ideology, built their "Chinese socialism" & now she has the 2nd largest economy, getting connected to C. Asia, Europe & SE Asia by land, building canals, while getting ready to take on the US in the Indo-Pacific & challenge US maritime "hegemony".

The Soviet socialist model was in reality a state capitalism wrapped up in the Utopian communist ideology derived from the outdated German Marxism. They achieved a lot but couldn't avoid the implosion in 1991.

I don't think you can assert that... no two Soviet leaders were the same and they all had a different "ideology".

What caused its implosion was trying to keep up militarily with all the European and the new American colonial powers, which I would suggest would bankrupt any country and is soon likely to bankrupt the US unless they change course.

The Chinese, on the other hand have enjoyed western support and investment and have curbed their military growth until they got their economy going.

Their enormous population means western sanctions are not going to hit them very hard because they have plenty of internal customers to sell to instead of the west... and the currency difference means their products are cheap... which is something western consumerist economies rely on...

Except now it is coming to a head... how do you get cheap products to the people and also pay those same people a living wage so they can afford a new Iphone every year or two... easy... get all those items they want to buy made in foreign countries by workers earning a fraction of minimum wage...

But if you move all production jobs overseas what will the locals do to earn a living?

What is this delirium? Communism not only refuse capitalism, but furthermore, the principal idea of communism is to undermine the supply and demand principle.  It is a completely paranoid theory.
Communist political structure is non inherited oligarchy, the very system than Marx tried to undermine. This is what Chinese kept and if applied with meritocracy is very effective,
more effective than what we call democracy* which requires a majority, broad or representative, and thus is very handicapped system for decision making, especially in open question problems and radical reforms.

*By the way, the key for democratization is not voting rights but social mobility.

People usually said Communist China, Communist Russia, Communist Bloc, Vietcong... but in fact the Soviets called itself "socialist" republics, not "communist" republics. China, Vietnam, Cuba... same here. We called ourselves "socialist" bloc, not "communist" bloc.

Also, the Soviets never claimed that they finish the socialist stage, except in a brief period under Khruschyov when he claimed that he only needed 20 years to build Communism in USSR. That claim was soon rejected after Khruschyov was ousted.

Building a 100% socialist society is very hard and a 100% communist society is many more times difficult.

GarryB wrote:I don't think you can assert that... no two Soviet leaders were the same and they all had a different "ideology".

What caused its implosion was trying to keep up militarily with all the European and the new American colonial powers, which I would suggest would bankrupt any country and is soon likely to bankrupt the US unless they change course.

My opinion is that the reason why USSR began to decline when their leaders began to deviate from the socialist idea and ethics... begin with Khruschyov, then with Breznhev, and finally under Gorbachyov the Party leader committed high treason and backstabbed the whole USSR.

It is ironic and also extremely painful to see that, many high-rank officials of USSR at that time are fake communists, they used the name of Marx and Lenin to gain power and authority and when socialist idea was no longer useful for them, they dropped their mask and became the worst enemy of the nation.

Khruschyov undermined USSR power both internally and externally by his destalinization. He stripped off the working class characteristic of the Communist Party during his interpretation of the Party's role. His hare-brain schemes and hot-headed styles damaged the prestige of the USSR and is one of the reason why the Chinesed disdained him. Khruschyov's policy of overshuffling the officials was considered detrimental.

Brezhnev on the other hand stubbornly keeping the officials intact... the officials got older and older and become increasingly conservative... that also increase corruption inside the Party and the State because the old officials over-consolidated their power and abused their authority. The uncured illness inside the Party degraded the faith of the people into the idea of socialism which became very devastating under Gorbachyov's rule.

Not much to say about Gorbachyov and his cronies, such as Yakovlev... they are traitors. They backstabbed the Party. They backstabbed the USSR. They destroyed the greatest socialist state in the world. They crushed the global socialist movement. I can't imagine a suitable punishment for such crimes.

Hannibal Barca wrote:What is this delirium? Communism not only refuse capitalism, but furthermore, the principal idea of communism is to undermine the supply and demand principle.  It is a completely paranoid theory.
Communist political structure is non inherited oligarchy, the very system than Marx tried to undermine. This is what Chinese kept and if applied with meritocracy is very effective,
more effective than what we call democracy* which requires a majority, broad or representative, and thus is very handicapped system for decision making, especially in open question problems and radical reforms.

*By the way, the key for democratization is not voting rights but social mobility.

Actually Marx was not the one who invented communism. Ideas of communism originated from the dawn of civilizations, many civilizations described an ideal society where there is no class and there is full communal ownership.

And the aims of Marxists are:

(1) the means of production have to be given back to their rightful owners, that is the working class.

(2) the funds, capitals, labour,... of the society has to be used to improve the mode of production. Which means: increase the level and the effeciency of the labour force; increase the technological level of the tools, guarantee the fair redistribution of products and production means, and maintain a production relationship which favors the working people.

(3) in order to achieve these goal, the working class has to be the absolute ruler of the society. The socialist state is born to serve the ones who work, not the parasites, not the bloodsuckers, not the criminals.

Their greatest mistake was not following/implementing/keeping Stolypin reforms, NEP & the collectivization of agriculture, leading to loss of production, food shortages/famines, & loss of population in the Ms while trying to catch up with the West by industrialization. If NEP started by Lenin lasted a few decades, Russia today would be the #1 or #2 economy in the World.

Building a 100% socialist society is very hard and a 100% communist society is many more times difficult.

Has real democracy ever existed anywhere except on a pirate ship?

The Iroquois & other Native American tribes had more democracy, & they influenced the 13 American Colonies to form a Union that later emulated the Roman Republican form of government, a slave owning plutocracy calling itself a democracy. The Civil War that followed was about preserving a Union, not abolishing slavery per se.
Statistically, democracies in Europe never lasted more than 240 years.
The Greeks had it before Alexander, but after the Roman empire split, the Eastern half continued as the Byzantine Empire.

Tsavo Lion wrote:The Iroquois & other Native American tribes had more democracy, & they influenced the 13 American Colonies to form a Union that later emulated the Roman Republican form of government, a slave owning plutocracy calling itself a democracy. The Civil War that followed was about preserving a Union, not abolishing slavery per se.
Statistically, democracies in Europe never lasted more than 240 years.
The Greeks had it before Alexander, but after the Roman empire split, the Eastern half continued as the Byzantine Empire.

Ancient democracy couldn't exist beyond the village/town/city level.

Greek states were actually an enlarged and complicated form of a village. At that small scale of population, some sort of democracy was plausible. Although only a very small top tier of the population enjoyed such privileges. When the Greeks and Romans began to build a huge centralized empire, democracy ceased to exists.

Greek democracy in a smaller scale was not unfamiliar in the East... In Vietnam, each village elected its own governmental bodies, and there were village assemblies at the communal temple. Of course the village governments were put under the authority and supervision of the monarch's central government, although a fair degree of autonomy is maintained (Vietnamese has an idiom "monarch's laws can't win over village's rules").

Tsavo Lion wrote:Their greatest mistake was not following/implementing/keeping Stolypin reforms, NEP & the collectivization of agriculture, leading to loss of production, food shortages/famines, & loss of population in the Ms while trying to catch up with the West by industrialization. If NEP started by Lenin lasted a few decades, Russia today would be the #1 or #2 economy in the World.

The aim of agricultural collectivization was to implement large-scale manufacture, by combining the capital and facilities of many people.

During the process at this or that point the manufacture has to be up-scaled and the capital and facilities are concentrated to be mobilized for grandiose projects. The problem here is how people mobilize and concentrate such an amount of capital.

What the USSR did was very benign and much more civilized than, for example, the Brits, they British aristocrats forcefully confiscated the communal land and villagers became landless. In the capitalist West, capital concentration happened in quite a savage way, when the bigger animals just eat out smaller preys and became bigger and bigger, until they monopolized the economy and crushed all potential competitors... hey, wait, did the West usually claims that only they have free trade and market competition ?

In the USSR, most produce the city dwellers bought in the markets came from small private plots the kolkhosniks (collective farm workers) were allowed to have. If a society can't feed itself well, it's not sustainable. Gorbachev was an agronomist & a lawyer by training & new & the real economic situation, hence his Perestroika.
China also had village communes but had to abolish them to feed its population; now it's mostly food self-sufficient. I buy their farm raised fish all the time!

I don't know if this deserves to be in this section but this neoliberal order run by the US will eventually fail according to this author.  

https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/02/01/why-did-socialism-fail/

andalusia wrote:I don't know if this deserves to be in this section but this neoliberal order run by the US will eventually fail according to this author.  

https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/02/01/why-did-socialism-fail/

The USSR did quite well for its "limited resource base". The author's thesis partly right and partly wrong. The relative poverty
of consumer life in the USSR and Warsaw Pact was the result of the inefficiency of central planning. In theory, command economics
is superior to profit skimming parasite economics (aka capitalism). But the command economy devolves into a bureaucratic nightmare
that kills off the efficiency and creates artificial shortages. Russia today is not tapped into any neo-colonial wealth pipeline like
the western colonialist powers. Yet the prosperity of consumer life is impressive. Russian citizens are not as poor as they were
in 1989. Of course, about 15% have gotten poorer thanks to inefficiencies of the market economy. But liberating companies
from bureaucratic suffocation is essential for Russia's survival.

Regular wrote:Say what ever about Russian empire, but it's decline was human catastrophy as it brought early communist experiments. They were not kind for Russians and their "soul", but it was never extinguished. Communism was especially damaging due to disgenic practices-  it promoted averages and the not the best of society. What Russia lost in humanitarian art- they regained in physics, chemistry and biology (only after retarded Lysenkoism) as scientific environment was very competitive in Soviet Union and competition breeds the best.

Communism promotes the best of all individuals in the society, not restrict that best in a self-proclaimed "elite" minority in the society.

"Not promoting the best" is a stupid Western propaganda, the self-proclaim elites in Western society wants to keep their privileged social position and do not want to serve the mass which they consider as "stupid", "ignorant", "filthy". "Promoting the best", "meritocracy" actually an effort to keep the privileged position for these "elite" and separate intelligentsia from working force. These "elite" intelligentsia deny the ability to be educated of the mass and don't want the mass to be as educated as them, because that threaten their privileged position.

The key for development of a society is not promoting the best, but spread the knowledge and skills to the whole population so that the mass can take part in a more complex and more productive manufacturing process, and each individual of that mass can enjoy a better share thanks to manufacturing growth so that the individual has the incentive to contribute more to the growth of the economy and society.

Russian Empire at the end of its life had a huge number of illiterate peasants, a backward industry and a corrupted, pro-West ruling aristocrat, you have to understand that the manufacture of Mosin rifles at that that were mostly carried out in foreign factories and domestic factories like Tula were underfunded. But then the Revolution came, and Soviet Union transformed into a superpower with developed industry and atomic bomb, and a large number of citizens who enjoyed higher education.

You can say whatever about Russia-ness of the Tsarist regime, but that could not help as it performed poorly in WW1. On the other hand, the Soviet Union marched to Berlin and raised their red flag there.

Russia-ness didn't help unless it was attached to the interest of the ones who feed this society, that is the working class. And actually, Russian identity has been formed by the commoners who form the bulk of the population, not the self-proclaimed "elites" who are actually the most Westernized ones.

higurashihougi wrote:

Regular wrote:Say what ever about Russian empire, but it's decline was human catastrophy as it brought early communist experiments. They were not kind for Russians and their "soul", but it was never extinguished. Communism was especially damaging due to disgenic practices-  it promoted averages and the not the best of society. What Russia lost in humanitarian art- they regained in physics, chemistry and biology (only after retarded Lysenkoism) as scientific environment was very competitive in Soviet Union and competition breeds the best.

Communism promotes the best of all individuals in the society, not restrict that best in a self-proclaimed "elite" minority in the society.

"Not promoting the best" is a stupid Western propaganda, the self-proclaim elites in Western society wants to keep their privileged social position and do not want to serve the mass which they consider as "stupid", "ignorant", "filthy". "Promoting the best", "meritocracy" actually an effort to keep the privileged position for these "elite" and separate intelligentsia from working force. These "elite" intelligentsia deny the ability to be educated of the mass and don't want the mass to be as educated as them, because that threaten their privileged position.

The key for development of a society is not promoting the best, but spread the knowledge and skills to the whole population so that the mass can take part in a more complex and more productive manufacturing process, and each individual of that mass can enjoy a better share thanks to manufacturing growth so that the individual has the incentive to contribute more to the growth of the economy and society.

Russian Empire at the end of its life had a huge number of illiterate peasants, a backward industry and a corrupted, pro-West ruling aristocrat, you have to understand that the manufacture of Mosin rifles at that that were mostly carried out in foreign factories and domestic factories like Tula were underfunded. But then the Revolution came, and Soviet Union transformed into a superpower with developed industry and atomic bomb, and a large number of citizens who enjoyed higher education.

You can say whatever about Russia-ness of the Tsarist regime, but that could not help as it performed poorly in WW1. On the other hand, the Soviet Union marched to Berlin and raised their red flag there.

Russia-ness didn't help unless it was attached to the interest of the ones who feed this society, that is the working class.

All communist countries are always hellholes and only get better when communism is get rid off. Thats a simple fact. I could never imagine to live under commuhism, losing my freedom and independence. A communist society can only held alive through terror.

Aristide wrote:

I think most bad renomee of russia in France is because USSR. I think russia cant be blamed for it. Communism brings evry nation down. Look how Mao butchered chinese culture.

Are you from russia?

I'm from Lithuania, half Russian on mother side. I was born in Soviet Union and seen it falling apart.
I admit that it had positives. This is what I remember- Soviet Union was very tidy, all services were running great. Playgrounds, parks, schools, universities, canteens, factories. It was very safe, militsia was respected, didn't go overboard, life was on easy mode. Even with shortages, our table was always full of food and my parents weren't best earning at the time, but we could afford holidays and all necessities.

As far as I remember military personnel wages were bloated compared to rest. Top generals were earning up to 20,000 roubles per month. Can you imagine earning roughly 35,000 USD of late 80s and that would convert to 80,000 usd of today.
What can you do with the money if everything is shortage?
You could buy property as flats cost roughly 5000-10000 roubles. And cars. Soviet union had it's millionaires - music artists, book writers too.
This is example why communism doesn't actually work that way as it was still mirroring capitalism with communist fasade.









Not to mention penthouses in Jurmala and Baltics built in Reserves illegally. Late 80s in Soviet Union was already building foundation to rise of Oligarchy.
As you can see, everyone was equal, but some were more equal than others.


I agree why simple people still miss Soviet as 90s was such downgrade in all aspects..

higurashihougi wrote:

Communism promotes the best of all individuals in the society, not restrict that best in a self-proclaimed "elite" minority in the society.

Hahaha, are you sure? Communist societies did have elite. This was politburo, important party members, generals, engineers, scientists. They were much better off than rest of the people. Have you seen dachas in Crimea and Latvia?
VHS and colour TVs were only available for few.

Also, I don't you you know about promotion of individuals in Soviet Union. It was through connections rather achievements. Ask anyone who grew up in Soviet Union how you can get in sweet positions with great rewards. Western movies get it wrong- they show that fanatical communism was main thing - nope, it was all connections and self interest.

"

Not promoting the best" is a stupid Western propaganda, the self-proclaim elites in Western society wants to keep their privileged social position and do not want to serve the mass which they consider as "stupid", "ignorant", "filthy". "Promoting the best", "meritocracy" actually an effort to keep the privileged position for these "elite" and separate intelligentsia from working force. These "elite" intelligentsia deny the ability to be educated of the mass and don't want the mass to be as educated as them, because that threaten their privileged position.

Yes, like Tsarist elite stopped Dostoevsky, Chaikovsky?

Majority of people are just that - statists. They like stupid sports, stupid TV shows and only care about sex, food and drink. North Korea or America, averages are generally the same. Do you think you are interested in military and other things you like because of education or just your curious nature?
I agree that general education is a good thing, but don't pretend it's forge of intellectuals.

The key for development of a society is not promoting the best, but spread the knowledge and skills to the whole population so that the mass can take part in a more complex and more productive manufacturing process, and each individual of that mass can enjoy a better share thanks to manufacturing growth so that the individual has the incentive to contribute more to the growth of the economy and society.

Sure, but wasn't Soviet education very specific and targeted not a whole population, hence schools/prof schools and universities? Some nations like kavkazoids and uzbeks had no access to most education that was accessible to Muscovites, nor do they needed as generally they were far less intelligent people.

Russian Empire at the end of its life had a huge number of illiterate peasants, a backward industry and a corrupted, pro-West ruling aristocrat, you have to understand that the manufacture of Mosin rifles at that that were mostly carried out in foreign factories and domestic factories like Tula were underfunded.

Yet even with failures of Tsar Russia was one of the biggest economies in the world and it was going through it's industrial revolution. Most of the peasants even in west were illeterate too, except for few nations.

But then the Revolution came, and Soviet Union transformed into a superpower with developed industry and atomic bomb, and a large number of citizens who enjoyed higher education

It wasn't easy transformation, plenty of failed dead ends and own Russian villager skulls had to crushed more than once to help the progress (With fucking Latvian communist hands ofcourse) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tambov_Rebellion

Putin said it that even if he likes ideals of communism it was implemented with greatest repressions and brutuality


US transformed itself from cowboy shithole to superpower at same time, it had nothing to do with communism, but technologic advance in agriculture and industry. And Tsarist Russia was advancing faster than most of the countries too.
What would have stopped that?

Russia lost it's vast gold reserves and Finland, Baltics, Poland and dwarfed under communism.
Tsar had to be overthrown, but communism should have never taken over Russia in such form as Lenin and his jewish deviants did. Russia should have had similar government of today- balanced in power.

You can say whatever about Russia-ness of the Tsarist regime, but that could not help as it performed poorly in WW1. On the other hand, the Soviet Union marched to Berlin and raised their red flag there.

Russians performed very very well in Brusilov charge. It gave birth to Blitzkrieg. But thanks to Tsar Russia gave up. This was biggest mistake and it's mentioned by Putin in video I've posted above.

Russia-ness didn't help unless it was attached to the interest of the ones who feed this society, that is the working class. And actually, Russian identity has been formed by the commoners who form the bulk of the population, not the self-proclaimed "elites" who are actually the most Westernized ones.

Russia-ness helped to defeat Mongols, Teutons, Turkish, French and many other enemies of Russia. Communism created Ukraine and other monstrosities. Guess who created Ukrainian alphabet and grammar to counter so called - Russian chauvinism?

Please stop simplifying comunism as good or evil. It wasn't hellhole, but it wasn't heaven on earth as well. Stagnation and shit leadership was SAME EXACT cause that destroyed Russian Empire. Last Tsar was Gorbochev. He might be good person, but weak and unfit ruler. Now imagine how would Russia look now if Medvedev stayed in power from 2008 to today.


My opinion about Soviet Union is similar to Putins - Кто не жалеет о распаде СССР, у того нет сердца. А у того, кто хочет его восстановления в прежнем виде, у того нет головы.
Who doesn't miss Soviet Union has no hearth, who wants it back has no brain.

Regular wrote:

Aristide wrote:

I think most bad renomee of russia in France is because USSR. I think russia cant be blamed for it. Communism brings evry nation down. Look how Mao butchered chinese culture.

Are you from russia?

I'm from Lithuania, half Russian on mother side. I was born in Soviet Union and seen it falling apart.
I admit that it had positives. This is what I remember- Soviet Union was very tidy, all services were running great. Playgrounds, parks, schools, universities, canteens, factories. It was very safe, militsia was respected, didn't go overboard, life was on easy mode. Even with shortages, our table was always full of food and my parents weren't best earning at the time, but we could afford holidays and all necessities.

As far as I remember military personnel wages were bloated compared to rest. Top generals were earning up to 20,000 roubles per month. Can you imagine earning roughly 35,000 USD of late 80s and that would convert to 80,000 usd of today.
What can you do with the money if everything is shortage?
You could buy property as flats cost roughly 5000-10000 roubles. And cars. Soviet union had it's millionaires - music artists, book writers too.
This is example why communism doesn't actually work that way as it was still mirroring capitalism with communist fasade.









Not to mention penthouses in Jurmala and Baltics built in Reserves illegally. Late 80s in Soviet Union was already building foundation to rise of Oligarchy.
As you can see, everyone was equal, but some were more equal than others.


I agree why simple people still miss Soviet as 90s was such downgrade in all aspects..

Thank you very much for your insight. We learn almost nothing from you guys side of the iron curtain in school and France was the only country in West that had relative normal relations to the east even during cold war.

I think Russia under the Czar did progress. The problem was its Czar was a very weak leader. I would not say an evol person but weak. Like our king Louis XVI. He was a good man, he realy was. But a weak king.

France had its own experience with communism, even so it was shortlived.

I dont know what they teach you guys about the french revolution, but it quickly turned into a monstrosity.

Under Robespierre, they did not only kill the royal family (like in Russia), they started to destroy french culture. They wanted rip down the cathedrals like Notre Dame. Their killing knew no limits.

They murdered tenthousands in such a short time. They murdered evryone, no matter what class. It was enough to have been a maid at a elite house to lose your head.

This terror was shortlived, because Robespierre went in overdrive and when even his followers had to fear execution...they executed Robespierre. The Revolution ate its own children.

Napoleon then was able to erase this quickly and bring back stability. Napoleon had his weak sides, but in that France must be eternal grateful.

Regular wrote:Hahaha, are you sure? Communist societies did have elite. This was politburo, important party members, generals, engineers, scientists. They were much better off than rest of the people. Have you seen dachas in Crimea and Latvia?
VHS and colour TVs were only available for few.

Your twisted understanding of communism came from the simplified thinking of "USSR = communism".

First and foremost, USSR never claimed that it reached communism. Except for a very short period when a certain mental patient named Khruschyov claimed that he could built communism in 20 years, none of the Soviet leaders claimed that they finished socialist stage to reach communist stage.

You can reach the official Party documents for verification, as you have better condition of approaching Russian documents than me.

The USSR and allies called themselves Socialist Bloc, not Communist Bloc.

Second, after the dead of Stalin, the USSR deviated further and further from socialism and communism, due to the rise of "privileged class" inside the Party and Government. This is completely against the principles of socialism and communism, and that lead to the collapse of the USSR from inside.

Regular wrote:Yes, like Tsarist elite stopped Dostoevsky, Chaikovsky?

How many people in Tsarist Russia can reach the level of Dostoevsky, Chaikovsky ?

Regular wrote:Majority of people are just that - statists. They like stupid sports, stupid TV shows and only care about sex, food and drink. North Korea or America, averages are generally the same. Do you think you are interested in military and other things you like because of education or just your curious nature?
I agree that general education is a good thing, but don't pretend it's forge of intellectuals.

This is the proof that ruling class want to keep their "elite" status and prevent the mass from reaching higher end of knowledge, by telling you to believe that, only a small number of people can reach the higher level of understanding.

Do you try to ask why the mass "like" the "stupid sports", "stupid TV shows" "sex", "food" and "drink". Is that their inherent nature ? Or because the media is full of sex, violence, and bullshit things ? Media is full of nonsense and bullshit like evil Putin invade the world, games is full of stupid like Red Alert portrays evil Stalin invade the "free West", what do you expect the mass to think ?

Especially when they have their full hand and head in factories and offices with few times to think for themselves about the right and wrong of the news ?

It is because the elite push down the information full of craps that you deformed the minds of the people, and then they blame the people for their own ignorance, that because the people are a bunch of ignorant low lifes, can't be compared with the elites. A disgusting hypocrisy from the Western ruling class.

I see you and many others on the Internet blame the people this and that, but does that change anything ? Most of this society is comprised of the people that you blame.

Regular wrote:Sure, but wasn't Soviet education very specific and targeted not a whole population, hence schools/prof schools and universities? Some nations like kavkazoids and uzbeks had no access to most education that was accessible to Muscovites, nor do they needed as generally they were far less intelligent people.

Then that was a weakness and that should have been fixed but not fixed.

Regular wrote:Yet even with failures of Tsar Russia was one of the biggest economies in the world and it was going through it's industrial revolution. Most of the peasants even in west were illeterate too, except for few nations.

That "big" economy is highly backward comparing with contemporary Western capitalist countries, if not among the most backward ones in the imperialist countries and was in huge debt borrowed from the Brits and France.

Proletariats only comprised of 10% of the population, and the workers in industrial sector was even lower. 4/5 of the population were farmers and much of the farmers were in poverty. Land concentration was high, 2/3 of arable land was in landlords and the Church.

Regular wrote:It wasn't easy transformation, plenty of failed dead ends and own Russian villager skulls had to crushed more than once to help the progress (With fucking Latvian communist hands ofcourse)

Was any transformation easy ? Especially when the transformation came into conflict with certain classes in the old society ?

The reactionary classes used violence to react against revolution and why should the revolution could not use violence to protect itself ?

To eradicate slavery, the United States need a Civil War, hundred of thousands were killed to force the slave owners to surrender. Try blaming Lincoln for repressing the "free will" of slave owners.

Regular wrote:Putin said it that even if he likes ideals of communism it was implemented with greatest repressions and brutality

Have you ever heard about Enclosure in the Brits ?

Have you ever heard about what Western imperialists did in Asia, America and Africa ?

Have you ever heard about the brutality that imperialists impose on black slaves ?

Repression, killings, brutality that the French and American imperialist imposed on my country is something that you can't imagine.

Putin is a good leader but he can be wrong in many occasions. And he can intentionally say wrong things to appease various factions for the sake of unity.

Regular wrote:Russia lost it's vast gold reserves and Finland, Baltics, Poland and dwarfed under communism.

Are you sad that Soviet Russia acknowledged the independence of nations oppressed by the Tsarist regime ?

Are you trying to turn Russia into an warlike country thirst for land from other nations ?

Do you see that you are one step closer to the racist Aristides ?

Regular wrote:Russians performed very very well in Brusilov charge. It gave birth to Blitzkrieg. But thanks to Tsar Russia gave up. This was biggest mistake and it's mentioned by Putin in video I've posted above.

Militarist and Western historian only focus on the military side of the war, that war is simply two forces in certain battlefields.

But without soldiers follow him Brusilov could not perform the shock offensive.

Without soldiers enlisted Brusilov could not carry out his military plan.

With our food, guns and ammo soldiers could not fight.

Germany and Russia lost in the WW1 because deteriorating conditions inside their home, that lead to revolutions. People did not want to fight and die in a meaningless war, what they need is bread and peace.

People get sick of the war and want peace. What would that war provide them when it was just the fought between different ruling oligarchs for lands and profits ?

You have to understand that war is an effort of the whole society, not just battles, just Brussilov, Jukov, or military generals.

You never focus on the needs and wills of the people who build the country so you put the blame of nonsense things.

Piotr he Great defeated the Swedes war because he managed to armed and feed 100000 soldiers and made these soldiers fought for him to the very end, and made the society maintain these army to the very end.

Russia defeated Napoleon because Russian peasants were armed and fought Napoleon to very end, and Russian society loyaly maintain the armed forces, while Napoleon army was rotten gradually thanks to no supply and no support.

Russian defeated Germany because the whole Soviet society stood together in the most bitter years of the war, because Russian society managed to churned out 50000 tanks, 4000000 PPsh, many Yaks, ILs... to support the armed forces to the very end.

Regular wrote:

Russia-ness didn't help unless it was attached to the interest of the ones who feed this society, that is the working class. And actually, Russian identity has been formed by the commoners who form the bulk of the population, not the self-proclaimed "elites" who are actually the most Westernized ones.

Russia-ness helped to defeat Mongols, Teutons, Turkish, French and many other enemies of Russia. Communism created Ukraine and other monstrosities. Guess who created Ukrainian alphabet and grammar to counter so called - Russian chauvinism?

Do you simply believe that only Russia-ness, independent of class interest, can force Russian peasants to throw their life away and follow the leadership of the ruling class ?

Do you notify that, the patriotic education documents always clarify clearly how the invader will harm the peasants ? That the invaders are brutal, they will kill the people, rob the villages, burn the house, rape the women, and destroy everything dearful of the people ?

That is class-interest. Something close, clear and detailed to the workers and farmers, not some ephemeral sense of Russia-ness.

Patriotism begins with the love for what close to you. Your father. Your mother. Your sibling. Your house. Your neighbor. Your river. Your mountain. Your field. Your daily life.

The nation is built by workers and farmers, culture and other else are closely related to their life and daily interest.

Regular wrote:My opinion about Soviet Union is similar to Putins - Кто не жалеет о распаде СССР, у того нет сердца. А у того, кто хочет его восстановления в прежнем виде, у того нет головы.
Who doesn't miss Soviet Union has no hearth, who wants it back has no brain.

What he means is the Soviet Union in its fault form, nobody wants it back, but they want a new regime which can materialize the ideas that of communism that the USSR had not completed.

higurashihougi wrote:

Regular wrote:Hahaha, are you sure? Communist societies did have elite. This was politburo, important party members, generals, engineers, scientists. They were much better off than rest of the people. Have you seen dachas in Crimea and Latvia?
VHS and colour TVs were only available for few.

Your twisted understanding of communism came from the simplified thinking of "USSR = communism".

First and foremost, USSR never claimed that it reached communism. Except for a very short period when a certain mental patient named Khruschyov claimed that he could built communism in 20 years, none of the Soviet leaders claimed that they finished socialist stage to reach communist stage.

You can reach the official Party documents for verification, as you have better condition of approaching Russian documents than me.

The USSR and allies called themselves Socialist Bloc, not Communist Bloc.

Second, after the dead of Stalin, the USSR deviated further and further from socialism and communism, due to the rise of "privileged class" inside the Party and Government. This is completely against the principles of socialism and communism, and that lead to the collapse of the USSR from inside.

Regular wrote:Yes, like Tsarist elite stopped Dostoevsky, Chaikovsky?

How many people in Tsarist Russia can reach the level of Dostoevsky, Chaikovsky ?

Regular wrote:Majority of people are just that - statists. They like stupid sports, stupid TV shows and only care about sex, food and drink. North Korea or America, averages are generally the same. Do you think you are interested in military and other things you like because of education or just your curious nature?
I agree that general education is a good thing, but don't pretend it's forge of intellectuals.

This is the proof that ruling class want to keep their "elite" status and prevent the mass from reaching higher end of knowledge, by telling you to believe that, only a small number of people can reach the higher level of understanding.

Do you try to ask why the mass "like" the "stupid sports", "stupid TV shows" "sex", "food" and "drink". Is that their inherent nature ? Or because the media is full of sex, violence, and bullshit things ? Media is full of nonsense and bullshit like evil Putin invade the world, games is full of stupid like Red Alert portrays evil Stalin invade the "free West", what do you expect the mass to think ?

Especially when they have their full hand and head in factories and offices with few times to think for themselves about the right and wrong of the news ?

It is because the elite push down the information full of craps that you deformed the minds of the people, and then they blame the people for their own ignorance, that because the people are a bunch of ignorant low lifes, can't be compared with the elites. A disgusting hypocrisy from the Western ruling class.

I see you and many others on the Internet blame the people this and that, but does that change anything ? Most of this society is comprised of the people that you blame.

Regular wrote:Sure, but wasn't Soviet education very specific and targeted not a whole population, hence schools/prof schools and universities? Some nations like kavkazoids and uzbeks had no access to most education that was accessible to Muscovites, nor do they needed as generally they were far less intelligent people.

Then that was a weakness and that should have been fixed but not fixed.

Regular wrote:Yet even with failures of Tsar Russia was one of the biggest economies in the world and it was going through it's industrial revolution. Most of the peasants even in west were illeterate too, except for few nations.

That "big" economy is highly backward comparing with contemporary Western capitalist countries, if not among the most backward ones in the imperialist countries and was in huge debt borrowed from the Brits and France.

Proletariats only comprised of 10% of the population, and the workers in industrial sector was even lower. 4/5 of the population were farmers and much of the farmers were in poverty. Land concentration was high, 2/3 of arable land was in landlords and the Church.

Regular wrote:It wasn't easy transformation, plenty of failed dead ends and own Russian villager skulls had to crushed more than once to help the progress (With fucking Latvian communist hands ofcourse)

Was any transformation easy ? Especially when the transformation came into conflict with certain classes in the old society ?

The reactionary classes used violence to react against revolution and why should the revolution could not use violence to protect itself ?

To eradicate slavery, the United States need a Civil War, hundred of thousands were killed to force the slave owners to surrender. Try blaming Lincoln for repressing the "free will" of slave owners.

Regular wrote:Putin said it that even if he likes ideals of communism it was implemented with greatest repressions and brutality

Have you ever heard about Enclosure in the Brits ?

Have you ever heard about what Western imperialists did in Asia, America and Africa ?

Have you ever heard about the brutality that imperialists impose on black slaves ?

Repression, killings, brutality that the French and American imperialist imposed on my country is something that you can't imagine.

Putin is a good leader but he can be wrong in many occasions. And he can intentionally say wrong things to appease various factions for the sake of unity.

Regular wrote:Russia lost it's vast gold reserves and Finland, Baltics, Poland and dwarfed under communism.

Are you sad that Soviet Russia acknowledged the independence of nations oppressed by the Tsarist regime ?

Are you trying to turn Russia into an warlike country thirst for land from other nations ?

Do you see that you are one step closer to the racist Aristides ?

Regular wrote:Russians performed very very well in Brusilov charge. It gave birth to Blitzkrieg. But thanks to Tsar Russia gave up. This was biggest mistake and it's mentioned by Putin in video I've posted above.

Militarist and Western historian only focus on the military side of the war, that war is simply two forces in certain battlefields.

But without soldiers follow him Brusilov could not perform the shock offensive.

Without soldiers enlisted Brusilov could not carry out his military plan.

With our food, guns and ammo soldiers could not fight.

Germany and Russia lost in the WW1 because deteriorating conditions inside their home, that lead to revolutions. People did not want to fight and die in a meaningless war, what they need is bread and peace.

People get sick of the war and want peace. What would that war provide them when it was just the fought between different ruling oligarchs for lands and profits ?

You have to understand that war is an effort of the whole society, not just battles, just Brussilov, Jukov, or military generals.

You never focus on the needs and wills of the people who build the country so you put the blame of nonsense things.

Piotr he Great defeated the Swedes war because he managed to armed and feed 100000 soldiers and made these soldiers fought for him to the very end, and made the society maintain these army to the very end.

Russia defeated Napoleon because Russian peasants were armed and fought Napoleon to very end, and Russian society loyaly maintain the armed forces, while Napoleon army was rotten gradually thanks to no supply and no support.

Russian defeated Germany because the whole Soviet society stood together in the most bitter years of the war, because Russian society managed to churned out 50000 tanks, 4000000 PPsh, many Yaks, ILs... to support the armed forces to the very end.

Regular wrote:

Russia-ness didn't help unless it was attached to the interest of the ones who feed this society, that is the working class. And actually, Russian identity has been formed by the commoners who form the bulk of the population, not the self-proclaimed "elites" who are actually the most Westernized ones.

Russia-ness helped to defeat Mongols, Teutons, Turkish, French and many other enemies of Russia. Communism created Ukraine and other monstrosities. Guess who created Ukrainian alphabet and grammar to counter so called - Russian chauvinism?

Do you simply believe that only Russia-ness, independent of class interest, can force Russian peasants to throw their life away and follow the leadership of the ruling class ?

Do you notify that, the patriotic education documents always clarify clearly how the invader will harm the peasants ? That the invaders are brutal, they will kill the people, rob the villages, burn the house, rape the women, and destroy everything dearful of the people ?

That is class-interest. Something close, clear and detailed to the workers and farmers, not some ephemeral sense of Russia-ness.

Patriotism begins with the love for what close to you. Your father. Your mother. Your sibling. Your house. Your neighbor. Your river. Your mountain. Your field. Your daily life.

The nation is built by workers and farmers, culture and other else are closely related to their life and daily interest.

Regular wrote:My opinion about Soviet Union is similar to Putins - Кто не жалеет о распаде СССР, у того нет сердца. А у того, кто хочет его восстановления в прежнем виде, у того нет головы.
Who doesn't miss Soviet Union has no hearth, who wants it back has no brain.

What he means is the Soviet Union in its fault form, nobody wants it back, but they want a new regime which can materialize the ideas that of communism that the USSR had not completed.

Communism can never work because its based on a wrong principle. Humans are not the same. They are different. A system that wants all uniform will always fail. It can maintain itelf with brutality or a short time but will rott apart.

I would never accept a communist government. I would join resistance to destroy it and i know many millions in France would do same.

Your twisted understanding of communism came from the simplified thinking of "USSR = communism".

My twisted understanding comes from actually living in communist country. As an old believer - family was both persecuted by Tsar and communists and Siberian Gulags gave me cousins in Far East and Bulgaria. My opinion is also not a fringe anti-communist one as I am proud of Soviet legacy in same time as I seen flaws. Pretty much any Russian in my age group have similiar views as polls show. My opinion of late Soviet Union was more possitive than negative and my best years of my youth was in idyllic setting- sunset of Empire before terrible reality.
I would call Khurshev an idiot on many things, but de-Stalinization was probably what separated Russia from Asian failed socialist experiments. I am not to sure what should I say to you if you think that personality cult, persecution and bloated security apparatus is any good.

How many people in Tsarist Russia can reach the level of Dostoevsky, Chaikovsky ?

How many people could achieve Dostevsky, Chaikovsky level? Not so many even after hundreds of years!!!
Russian golden age was sparked by literacy movements and it did in fact have an impact. Soviet literacy projects can't be denied too, yet it would have came to Russia regardless who was in power same as industrialization. Shitholes like Ireland, Sweden and Turkey and various Asian countries eventually became literate and somewhat industrialised without communism. To think Russian were inferior to Irish gingers with crooked teeth and genetics of their cousins is absurdity.

This is the proof that ruling class want to keep their "elite" status and prevent the mass from reaching higher end of knowledge, by telling you to believe that, only a small number of people can reach the higher level of understanding.

I had quite long history of personal development, but I have fairly average intelligence and I will never achieve great feats of discovery or do any arts as I am simply not capable of this. Physically as well I have limits and regards my age - I will never be boxing champion.
There are much smarter people in this forum, like Garry. No matter how I would try I won't be able to contribute as him. I would even say Aristides and perhaps you have better brain power then me, but I have my stenghts as well. What I want to say, that average people are just that - average. There was ruling class hindering me or hiding higher knowledge. In the days of internet and easily accessible sources in libraries it's even more so.  

Do you try to ask why the mass "like" the "stupid sports", "stupid TV shows" "sex", "food" and "drink". Is that their inherent nature ? Or because the media is full of sex, violence, and bullshit things ? Media is full of nonsense and bullshit like evil Putin invade the world, games is full of stupid like Red Alert portrays evil Stalin invade the "free West", what do you expect the mass to think ?

Especially when they have their full hand and head in factories and offices with few times to think for themselves about the right and wrong of the news ?

It is because you elite push down the information full of craps that you deformed the minds of the people, and then you blame the people for their own ignorance, that because the people are a bunch of ignorant low lifes, can be compared with your elites ?

I see you and many others on the Internet blame the people this and that, but does that change anything ? Most of this society is comprised of the people that you blame

I simply see this as media catering to primalism of humanity.
Same example can be noticed where media is non factor-
Well recorded deviant behaviours of Greek citizens, Romans of both patricians and plebians background, Chinese peasant fixations with animal phalluses and orgies of their emperors. Even today African tribals endorse themselves into various sexual deviances- raping animals, women, killing and pillaging for sake of fun or superstition.  We as humans don't differ much from wild chimpanzees in terms of source of enjoyment.

]Then that was a weakness and that should have been fixed but not fixed.

Well they are lucky that Khurshev let them come back as Stalin wanted their bones scattered in Siberia. Believe me, Kavkazus nations only care about fighting, eating shashlik and fighting again. Visit Ingushetia and Dagestan. Primitive, but good people.

That "big" economy is highly backward comparing with contemporary Western capitalist countries, if not among the most backward ones in the imperialist countries and was in huge debt borrowed from the Brits and France.

Proletariats only comprised of 10% of the population, and the workers in industrial sector was even lower. 4/5 of the population were farmers and much of the farmers were in poverty. Land concentration was high, 2/3 of arable land was in landlords and the Church.

Yet it wasn't worse than Ireland and most of central and northern Europe. Stolypin reforms did address many of issues of agriculture and this paved way to industrialisation.

Was any transformation easy ? Especially when the transformation came into conflict with certain classes in the old society ?

The reactionary classes used violence to react against revolution and why should the revolution could not use violence to protect itself ?

To eradicate slavery, the United States need a Civil War, hundred of thousands were killed to force the slave owners to surrender. Try blaming Lincoln for repressing the "free will" of slave owners.

Revolution was ok, but communists took power after Russian Revolution on October and I doubt it was necessary. They crushed socialist movements by peasants ruthlessly. Tombov and Yaroslav rebellions were crushed using Latvian streltsy.

Also, civil war had little to with slaver - it's US propaganda. It's sugarcoating for government overthrow. I don't care about slaves at all and they were never free after civil war anyway. They probably even had it worse for some time.

Bullshit.

Have you ever heard about Enclosure in the Brits ?

Have you ever heard about what Western imperialists did in Asia, America and Africa ?

Have you ever heard about the brutality that imperialists impose on black slaves ?

Repression, killings, brutality that the French and American imperialist imposed on my country is something that you can't imagine.

Don't like comparing suffering, but you are comparing foreign invaders with inner repressions. Americans were still in trees eating bananas when Mongols came. They were genocidal tyrants. Then teutons, swedes, poles came as well. They all died. Tsars started persecute starovers in Russia. They died. Then nazis - dead. Soviet Union died as well, but Russians survived. Do you see the pattern?
Even africans don't know even tiniest bit of suffering Russians do. But russians don't cry. History doesn't like victims.

Are you sad that Soviet Russia acknowledged the independence of nations oppressed by the Tsarist regime ?

Are you trying to turn Russia into an warlike country thirst for land from other nations ?

Do you see that you are one step closer to the racist Aristides ?

But Poles, Balts and Fins had to fight both Tsarist and Red troops and in Lithuanian case, among themselves and Poles too. It was free for all and no one recognised anything.
I do think Russia is nation of conquerors and educators. They dragged kavkaz tribes out of caves and Finnish people out of interbreeding. Russia got big not because it was friendly. Russians were always warriors who fought against all odds.
Northern Russian men and women are physically much stronger than westerners and only matched by Nordic people in size. Hitler was always talking about Aryans and guess why he hated Russians the most.



Might makes right is the thing I do believe today.

What he means is the Soviet Union in its fault form, nobody wants it back, but they want a new regime which can materialize the ideas that of communism that the USSR had not completed.

Do you honestly believe that majority of Russians wanted or want to see real communism implemented in their own country? What is holding North Korea or China to implement it?
Russia of today is drifting far away from communism as possible. Pension age went up, less and less social protection is being guaranteed, more and more wealth trickles down to people and generally Russia is heading starting to develope powerful corporations. BBC is wrong- Putin isn't trying to resurrect Soviet Union. He is killing it.

Regular wrote:My twisted understanding comes from actually living in communist country.

The problem here is, someone with a sign of hammer and sickle on his shirt or scraft does not mean he is a true communist. Traitors and pretenders are everywhere. The self-proclamied "communists" in France and Japan are examples, and very disgusting examples, of traitors and pretenders.

The USSR had drifted away from the principles of socialism and communism after Stalin died, with the rise of revisionists and a "priveleged class", all of them are the opposite of communism. And when the drifting reached a critical point, the USSR collapsed.

When someone abuse the Party and goverment position to make a profit for himself instead of serving the greater good, he is no longer a communist.

You already know better than me, that at the end of its life, the USSR leaders openly betrayed the idea of communism under the guise of "glasnost". Such disgusting attitude showed their true color.

Regular wrote:I would call Khurshev an idiot on many things, but de-Stalinization was probably what separated Russia from Asian failed socialist experiments. I am not to sure what should I say to you if you think that personality cult, persecution and bloated security apparatus is any good.

De-Stalinization did not help in removing personality cult, it just replace the cult of Stalin with the cult of Khruschyov, and later Breznhev, and Gorbachyov.

Khruschyov is a disgusting opportunists who outrightly lied many things, he De-Stalin just for the sake for his profit and had nothing to do with objective evaluation of history.

Persecution and bloated security is either good or bad depends on the historical background. We need to take a good look at the condition of 193x to understand why such measures was taken and whether such measures were necessary or not. At the condition of today of course people use different measures. You cannot use your criteria of today to judge what happened in the time of Stalin, just like what the Western media is doing.

Regular wrote:Soviet literacy projects can't be denied too, yet it would have came to Russia regardless who was in power same as industrialization.

No.

It depends on the interests of the ruling class and the reactions of ruled class. If general education did not generate any profit to the ruling class then nothing would be done. If the ruled class did not stand up and start to demand then general education, reduced work hours, social welfare could not be achieved.

Before 1945, most of the Indochina population is illiterate, fund for garrisoned force was even higher than fund for education. Educated population is not needed for the ruling class in bloodsucking colonies.

The USSR pioneered in 8hrs work a day, universal education, and many social cares, the USSR made a pioneer example for workingmen in all the world to stand up and demands, and capitalist countries had to follow in order to maintain the competitiveness against the USSR.

Regular wrote:To think Russian were inferior to Irish gingers with crooked teeth and genetics of their cousins is absurdity.

That has nothing to do with the Irish and nothing to do with comparing this race with that race.

Regular wrote:There are much smarter people in this forum, like Garry. No matter how I would try I won't be able to contribute as him. I would even say Aristides and perhaps you have better brain power then me, but I have my stenghts as well. What I want to say, that average people are just that - average. There was ruling class hindering me or hiding higher knowledge. In the days of internet and easily accessible sources in libraries it's even more so.

That does not prevent you from increasing your understanding in the sectors outside of your specialization if more time and fund is directed to this. You may not reach the level of others in their specialization, but at least you can grasp what they are saying and you may even guess whether they are lying or trying to fool you.

And of course the mass need to understand whether the "elites" are trying to fool them or not.

The society with less ignorant people is better, and the only way is letting them be educated, not dismissing them and "stupid lowlife". Dismissing them won't change anything, do not make the society better.

Regular wrote:Revolution was ok, but communists took power after Russian Revolution on October and I doubt it was necessary. They crushed socialist movements by peasants ruthlessly. Tombov and Yaroslav rebellions were crushed using Latvian streltsy.

Communist takeover was necessary because only the Communist who took step to stop the meaningless war for Russia and tried to make a government which was truly represented the workers and farmers.

Mistakes and faults did occurs, but at the end of the day the majority of Russian population supported the Bolshevik to defeat the Whites and interventionists. At that time the Russian society is exhausted by imperialist war, an unpopular Communist movement could have not mobilized huge support to defeat such many enemies.

Regular wrote:Don't like comparing suffering, but you are comparing foreign invaders with inner repressions. Americans were still in trees eating bananas when Mongols came. They were genocidal tyrants. Then teutons, swedes, poles came as well. They all died. Tsars started persecute starovers in Russia. They died. Then nazis - dead. Soviet Union died as well, but Russians survived. Do you see the pattern?
Even africans don't know even tiniest bit of suffering Russians do. But russians don't cry. History doesn't like victims.

Brits Enclosure was internal suppression. The Brits aristocrat used violence to pushed the tenants and farmers out of the farmland so that they had no choice but enter the labor market, selling their labor force in factories opened by capitalists and aristocrats.

There are surpression in many capitalist dictactorship, in Singapore, in Indonesia, the genocide of Amerindians in certain South America capitalist dictactorship, the regime of Pinochet, Somoza, and many others.

What I tried to say is that the supression of capitalism is far greater both in scales and magnitude. The Revolution had to use violence to surpress the old ruling class to pave the way for new society, and such violence is nothing in comparison with the violence that the old ruling class used to maintain their exploitation.

Regular wrote:I do think Russia is nation of conquerors and educators. They dragged kavkaz tribes out of caves and Finnish people out of interbreeding. Russia got big not because it was friendly. Russians were always warriors who fought against all odds.
Northern Russian men and women are physically much stronger than westerners and only matched by Nordic people in size. Hitler was always talking about Aryans and guess why he hated Russians the most.
Might makes right is the thing I do believe today.

My nation are always involuntarily fighters who had to fight against many, yet that does not prevent me from believe that my nation should be friendly and respect the independence of others.

Fighting against too many invaders probably make us believe that, imperialism is wrong.

Regular wrote:Do you honestly believe that majority of Russians wanted or want to see real communism implemented in their own country?  

Yes.

Because workingmen are still there, being exploited, and sooner or later they must take serious step to make a new society for their own sake.

Communism is inevitable because people are thriving for better and better society, where exploitation and unjust is finally eradicated.

The collpase of USSR is a historical lesson, now people look at history and can see where the USSR went wrong, what mistake did they make. Knowing the mistake of predecessors, the workers will not repeat it.

With the collapse of USSR capitalist historians say: "history is over." But workingmen say: "no, history is going to the next phase".

Communism can never work because its based on a wrong principle. Humans are not the same. They are different. A system that wants all uniform will always fail. It can maintain itelf with brutality or a short time but will rott apart.

When it is every man for himself then there is only one winner.

If humans had evolved that way we would not be the dominant species on earth today.

Communism is about society and being part of a group... rich people fear this because collections offer power... a group of soldiers or policemen are vastly more powerful than any individual... it is just a fact...

By working in groups and in teams you can specialise and focus and end up with a much better result than if you had to do everything for yourself.

Make your own clothes? Build your own shelter? Of course you could... but in a civilised society you can specialise in what you are good at and do that for everybody, while they do what they are good at for you.

Democracy is fundamentally flawed simply because 60 percent of people never bother to vote most of the time anyway, and of the 40% who do... probably 10 % are fucking idiots and a further 20% have no idea who they are voting for and the remaining 10% who actually vote are probably getting it wrong anyway.

A popularity contest where a charismatic con man can do well as long as he has enough money to support his campaign... which automatically makes him compromised to do a fair job because he owes people who helped him get the job.

I would never accept a communist government. I would join resistance to destroy it and i know many millions in France would do same.

Yeah, I bet they are scared...

GarryB wrote:Democracy is fundamentally flawed simply because 60 percent of people never bother to vote most of the time anyway, and of the 40% who do... probably 10 % are fucking idiots and a further 20% have no idea who they are voting for and the remaining 10% who actually vote are probably getting it wrong anyway.

A popularity contest where a charismatic con man can do well as long as he has enough money to support his campaign... which automatically makes him compromised to do a fair job because he owes people who helped him get the job.

Contesting parties in Western countries are basically liars, because much of them are simply catch-all party of power, their aim is getting as much vote as possible to get the ruling position in the government and to extract the profit from that position.

Therefore their election program is aimed to be as general as possible, as dubious as possible, because they are trying to catch various groups of elector with very different interests.

Therefore the true social, economical issues are completely avoided because such issues could amplify the inherent conflict between social classes and that go against the policy of catch-all.

So if you want coffee we will offer you coffee, you want cats or rainbow or pinkie panties we will offer you, you want male bras and topless we will offer you. But workingmen salary, workingmen welfare, exploitation of labourers... well, so complicated... we will talk about it later.

At the end of the day no matter which party won the contest in Western countries, nothing change.