Author Topic: Communism (Read 1919 times)

Boroda · « **Reply #75 on:** May 06, 2003, 01:29:55 PM »

Lizard, you have very distorted view on Russian history.

Report from Samara is definetly from 1922 famine in Volga region. JFYI: unlike Imperial government, Bolsheviks tried to stop it... I still have 1922 "Help the starving people on Volga" charity post stamps in my collection. They were issued without price printed on them, everyone bought it paying as much as he could spent on charity...

In 1922 we didn't have "war-time communism" or "socialism", we had "NEP", "New Economical Policy", basically - a capitalism with hard currency supported by gold.

Lenin died in 1924, Ukrainian famine happened in 1932. My family suffered from it, so I do know what I speak about

So far what you say is a propaganda lie or a result of a lack of knowledge or mistake, I don't know. You'd better check the dates and the map before posting such things.

Our history is very strange and complicated, and very hard to understand for a Westerner.

Montezuma · « **Reply #76 on:** May 06, 2003, 01:31:20 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Look I think it basically comes down to fact that I hate communism and that it makes me very happy to see communists be defeated anywhere in the world. You have different thoughts on the matter and so we honestly disagree. I think thats a fair thing to say.

Do you think Croatia was better off under the Ustasha?

Boroda · « **Reply #77 on:** May 06, 2003, 01:47:40 PM »

Miko, you are partialy true. It's just a misunderstanding, we didn't "lose" but US "won".

In fact Gorby simply sold out the country, and the late-Soviet projects like Buran were too expencive and resulted in huge credits taken from abroad...

The last straw was the fall of the USSR as a united state, too many economocal bounds were broken, and we had to start almost from the very beginning. For example, in Armenia they had to burn all the trees in the parks in Yerevan to heat the houses... Planned economics turned into a chaos...

So US "won" because the only force that could oppose them was gone, and we "lost" because of the economical disaster that followed the refusal from that opposition. The enemy will not be satisfied until Russia will loose all it's high-tech production facilities and nuclear weapons, and brought to starvation. No much difference from famous "Plan Ost"...

SaburoS · « **Reply #78 on:** May 06, 2003, 02:15:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Lizard3
With close ties to the Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea and North Veitnam, how long do you think it would've taken? He'd ridden the country to the brink of colapse, what was his next move?

The country was already in a state of economic collapse.
That's what happens when a high number of corporations fall under foreign control. The capital gets sucked out of the country rather than returned to the country.
Funny thing is, had he not nationalized the US controlled copper mines, we'd of let him be.
If we hadn't put Chile on an econimic blockade and blacklisted them from the World Bank, he wouldn't of been forced to seek economic aid from those we see as "enemies." Funny how our military aid went up during the same period we were blacklisting them.
That's the game we play. We don't like the leadership of a sovereign nation so we try to blackmail them into submission.
Happened with Cuba. Happened with Nicaragua.
BTW what did he do that was bad for Chile? He was a nationalist using socialism to get his country's wealth back. He wasn't a communist. He did what he said he would do when he ran for office. Although he was part of a group consisting of an alliance of a few different groups, he got the most votes (it was close).

What would you actually do in his situation under the same conditions?

miko2d · « **Reply #79 on:** May 06, 2003, 02:51:39 PM »

Boroda: In fact Gorby simply sold out the country...

Sold to whom? It's own people? He allowed people freedom to speak first and then did not prevent them from changing their form of government. What's so bad about it?
Unless you somehow consider a country separate from the people populating it, your statement does not make sense. But even if we assume that a country is a real thing rather than just a metaphysical concept we use for convenience, why do you think Russia has worse prospective now as a country than USSR had?

and the late-Soviet projects like Buran were too expencive and resulted in huge credits taken from abroad...

Which are tiny compared to the money USSR spent buying grain and food abroad. Considering that private peasant's plots (1 acre per household) provided 40% of the USSR total food production, extending that size to 3 acres would have allowed USSR to became a net food exporter and save oil money for something better.

The last straw was the fall of the USSR as a united state, too many economocal bounds were broken, and we had to start almost from the very beginning.

True - when economical bomds are broken, bad things happened. Like when US adopted Smoot-Hawley TariffAct under Hoover, the world-wide Great Depression immediately ensued.
Unlike the Great Depression which was completely unnecessary, most of the economic bonds in the USSR did not make any sense and shoudl have been broken. Those that were still productive did not have to be broken and if one side or another decided to break them, who are we to argue?

So US "won" because the only force that could oppose them was gone,

Opposed in what? Military domination of the world? Russia still has all those nukes if US get too frisky.

and we "lost" because of the economical disaster that followed the refusal from that opposition.

As I've mentioned before, countries - including US - survived even greated economical disaster - often self-inflicted without good any reasons - but do not consider themselves "lost".

BTW - many people said the same thing about US when it almost destroyed itself by inflicting Great Depression while the communist Russia was developing quite nicely.

The enemy will not be satisfied until Russia will loose all it's high-tech production facilities and nuclear weapons, and brought to starvation

You are just paranoid. While getting rid of nuclear weapons is always a good idea, why would anyone consider it beneficial to starve Russia? As a rich and prosperous country, it would pose much less threat to everyone, including being able to better control it's weapos.

Granted, the western world's "help" and influence brought economic ruination to its client third-world countries but it was not intentional, rather the result of the same Keynesian policies that so hurt western society itself.

Once you get onto the wrong side of the Laffer Curve, well-meaning "austerity" plans and forced savings schemes are certain to contract the production.

miko

midnight Target · « **Reply #80 on:** May 06, 2003, 03:12:29 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Lizard3
Your a wuss and easily scared if this is the scariest of the year. Besides, there's 8 months left to go and 4 or 5 more of my posts in this thread to read.

You've been reading Libby, Libby, Libby on the Label, Label, Label a bit to much. Grow up, diversify, read a little broader subject matter.

Oh please daddy... explain to me how tailgunner joe saved our bacon again! I like the part about those 400 State department employees the best! And all those dirty commie students that were just waiting to rape our cars and steal our women!

duck and cover Lizard!!!

Boroda · « **Reply #81 on:** May 07, 2003, 01:53:31 PM »

Miko, interesting and productive discussion, thanks!

Sold to whom? It's own people? He allowed people freedom to speak first and then did not prevent them from changing their form of government. What's so bad about it?

Do you remember a "perestroyka" joke about a dog on a chain? Chain is made one meter longer, the food is moved 2 meters far away, and you can bark as loud as you want...

The collapse of USSR is a result of Gorby's unsuccessfull provocation... Instead of letting people work he made all the steam go into a whistle, and tried to secure status quo by not letting the new "Union treaty" be signed on August 20 1991. The attempt to "prevent them people changing their form of government" was a complete failure.

In fact he was selling all the post-war political achevements for credits that were nessesary for INDUSTRIAL development. Same old stupid path when 95% of industry were producing means of production.

Unless you somehow consider a country separate from the people populating it, your statement does not make sense. But even if we assume that a country is a real thing rather than just a metaphysical concept we use for convenience, why do you think Russia has worse prospective now as a country than USSR had?

Country isn't separate from people, and the post-USSR republics showed it. Integrity is vital. Political position is vital.

Unlike the Great Depression which was completely unnecessary, most of the economic bonds in the USSR did not make any sense and shoudl have been broken. Those that were still productive did not have to be broken and if one side or another decided to break them, who are we to argue?

Many bounds were broken with customs wars and even "conventional" wars (Armenia-Azerbaijan). The problem was that bounds were broken by administrative decisions, not even by our strange "free market".

Opposed in what? Military domination of the world? Russia still has all those nukes if US get too frisky.

Well, the bipolar world was gone, the Yalta security system ceased to exist. So, now we see the full-scale American imperialism in action. You have strength - you don't need intelligence. What scares so many people is that they can be bombed "to stone age", starved, poisoned etc, in case something happens in the US. We all saw that they have no common sence, they are unpredictable....

USSR/Russia (red side) refused from using force in international politics, but the blue side still relys on it and doesn't meet any opposition. That's what I mean.

BTW - many people said the same thing about US when it almost destroyed itself by inflicting Great Depression while the communist Russia was developing quite nicely.

Most of the things I know about Great depression are from books about FDR (one of my "idols" in politics), but I heard that some Soviet contracts "saved" (sorry for this word) American economics. Looks like the admission of USSR was not only a political decision...

You are just paranoid. While getting rid of nuclear weapons is always a good idea, why would anyone consider it beneficial to starve Russia? As a rich and prosperous country, it would pose much less threat to everyone, including being able to better control it's weapos.

You don't get the point. Russia can't afford a full-scale conventional warfare with it's neighbours. Look at the NATO advance, American presence in Georgia and Pribaltika. North-Western Russian airspace is already controlled by NATO long-range radars in Estonia. Leningrad (sorry, SPb) is within the range of NATO tactical aviation... Paranoid you say?!

Look at the history of last 500 years. We have SOME reasons to be paranoid...

Granted, the western world's "help" and influence brought economic ruination to its client third-world countries but it was not intentional, rather the result of the same Keynesian policies that so hurt western society itself.

I doubt that it was unintentional. So far Wesern "Golden Billion" lives as a parasite on the rest of the world. US exports green paper, getting priceless resourses. The only system that can oppose it now is "communist" China.

Remember that joke from 70s-80s? Optimists study English, pessimists study Chinese, and realists study Kalashnikov's automat...