U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-11-2013, 09:35 PM
 
18,314 posts, read 15,376,318 times
Reputation: 8040

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post
The most crucial question in evaluating any theory is....does it work?

If getting a population to cooperate with the ends of a socialist society requires continuous coercion, then that is indeed a flaw in the theory, not just in the application. The theory foresaw voluntary cooperation to such a degree that eventually there would be no more need for a state structure at all...it would whither away.

So far all of the Marxist/Communist governments which have come into being have proven to require that coercion and no withering away of any sort has taken place in any of them.

It is a bad theory if putting it into practice demands that what you predicted would be voluntary turns out to be compulsory. It is bad theory if it only works on paper, not in practice.
So... why so many Russians would like to go back to live under communist system, after they've got the taste of freedom, capitalism and all?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-11-2013, 09:43 PM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
48,025 posts, read 20,216,444 times
Reputation: 20662
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post
So... why so many Russians would like to go back to live under communist system, after they've got the taste of freedom, capitalism and all?
Capitalism is based on the idea of producing winners and losers. If it is working properly, there will always be a pool of dissatisfied losers.

Perhaps something more specific than "so many" could be provided, that could be any percentage and I am disinclined to debate vague assertions. Is it more than half? Less than 5 %?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2013, 09:46 PM
 
18,314 posts, read 15,376,318 times
Reputation: 8040
Quote:
Originally Posted by tijlover View Post
What bought about about communism to any of these countries, most generally it was the result of capitalistic excesses and abuses?

So! Why weren't we publicly condemning those excesses and abuses before communism reared its head, whether it be Russia, Cuba, Nicaragua, Cambodia, Vietnam? Why weren't we warning them: You keep this up and your capitalistic system is going to go bye-bye?
Because ( I think) capitalism was never intended to benefit all societies/nations equally.
( I mean do you really think that the whole world could be sustained in the same manner as the Western counties were, when it comes to consumerism?) I think not. Therefore in the same way the idea of "for the good of the collective" can't benefit industrialized societies.
I suspect Marx simply confused two different concepts when he assigned basically right kind of idea to the wrong kind of society.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2013, 10:01 PM
 
18,314 posts, read 15,376,318 times
Reputation: 8040
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post
Capitalism is based on the idea of producing winners and losers. If it is working properly, there will always be a pool of dissatisfied losers.
The question is - what's "working properly" exactly means and amount of "losers" vs the "winners" matters as well.

Quote:
Perhaps something more specific than "so many" could be provided, that could be any percentage and I am disinclined to debate vague assertions. Is it more than half? Less than 5 %?
This might give you a better idea.

Putin Loses Majority In Russian Elections As Communist Party Soars | Zero Hedge

?Socialism is the future? ? Russian Communist leader ? RT Russian politics


( I know that people in the party I root for, are very, very weary of the rise of communism popularity among the general population - I can tell you that much.)
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2013, 11:34 PM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
48,025 posts, read 20,216,444 times
Reputation: 20662
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post

Putin Loses Majority In Russian Elections As Communist Party Soars | Zero Hedge

?Socialism is the future? ? Russian Communist leader ? RT Russian politics


( I know that people in the party I root for, are very, very weary of the rise of communism popularity among the general population - I can tell you that much.)
Well, you could have quoted this yourself, but I found the answer.
From the linked article:
Quote:
One thing is certain" the biggest winners from today's turnout are the former Communsits, the CPRF party, which has about 20% of the vote,
So, 20 % yearn for the good old Red Days, which means 80% do not.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-12-2013, 08:11 AM
 
4,456 posts, read 3,936,646 times
Reputation: 3115
Quote:
So, 20 % yearn for the good old Red Days, which means 80% do not
If so, most of them fought with Stalin. They have memories that won't go away but the memories no doubt are the good ones. Stalin put the West in their place. I'd say they still like that. It'll get votes for sure.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-12-2013, 04:46 PM
 
Location: Jamestown, NY
7,841 posts, read 7,845,160 times
Reputation: 13779
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil P View Post
Ok, so we all know the tragedies of the US's overreaction to the communist/USSR threat during the cold war: Vietnam, Shah in Iran, Cuba, push for interstate system/suburban sprawl... all in the name of defense. But did the US have to do this? Did it have to be so aggressive to preserve the free world we have today? How much of a margin of error did the US have in the Cold War?
The rise of suburbia had nothing to do with the Cold War since it started long before Communism ever existed.

The Interstate highway system was NOT a mistake any more than the Erie Canal or the transcontinental railroad.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post
Isn't the notion that the western allies could have defeated the Red Army after the Nazis collapsed, the product of hubris?

Following the extraordinary sacrifice and misery required to overcome Germany, the goal of all the blood and treasure invested, how enthused would Brits and Americans be for..."Congratulations everyone, we have won. Now let us embark on an entirely new war which most likely will be even longer and more costly than the one we just completed."

And if you wish to argue that we could have forced a stalemate until the end of the summer when atomic bombs would be available, just how would they have been used? Force the Soviets out of Prague and Warsaw by nuking those cities?
I agree. FYI, the US only had 2 atomic bombs in 1945 anyways.

Quote:
Originally Posted by easthome View Post
They knew alright, I know for a fact that Churchill did and I believe the US knew it too.
Churchill had Stalin figured right, but Roosevelt was a dying man, and nobody in his administration bothered to brief Truman on anything until he took over, so by the time he got "up to speed", it was too late. It wasn't the first nor would it be the last time that the vice prez was kept "out of the loop" while the POTUS was in failing health/mental facilities. It happened at least twice more just in the twentieth century: in Wilson's and in Reagan's second terms.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-12-2013, 05:01 PM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
48,025 posts, read 20,216,444 times
Reputation: 20662
Quote:
Originally Posted by Linda_d View Post
FYI, the US only had 2 atomic bombs in 1945 anyways.


.
They had ten through October of 1945. Three of them they used, Trinity, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The 4th bomb was ready for use on September 19th, but Japan had already agreed to surrender on the 14th.

Three more bombs already being assembled were completed in September, and another three in October.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-12-2013, 06:31 PM
Status: "Trump - excepting Jorgensen, the least of multiple evils" (set 8 days ago)
 
Location: Nescopeck, Penna. (birthplace)
13,774 posts, read 8,471,438 times
Reputation: 17854
Quote:
Originally Posted by tovarisch View Post
Marxism itself (the ideology) wasn't the evil. Autocratic dictatorship (Stalin, Mao, Castro, etc.) WAS, and the problem was that the US picked and chose which dictators to support, depending upon economic needs. The US is STILL in bed with the Saudis, because of oil, and that's a dictatorship. We were/are friendly/unfriendly with various governments in Latin America for similar economic reasons. I am not pro-Marxism, I am pro-democracy, but the facts support what I am saying.
Harry Truman, who was certainly no Bircher, is reported to have said of one dictator (possibly Dominican strongman Rafael Trujillo) "I know he's an S. O. B, but he's our S. O. B."

That rationale can be linked to most of the alleged "excesses" of American anti-Communist zeal during the Cold War era, and I believe a parallel can be drawn to the Soviet Bloc's cultivation of small, underdeveloped, and usually-autocratic Third World nations as a cohesive group opposing almost all American and Israeli action, using the united Nations as a forum. This sentiment appears to have peaked in the Seventies, but lingered until, and diminished quickly, at the close of the Cold War.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-12-2013, 11:58 PM
 
Location: El Sereno, Los Angeles, CA
733 posts, read 797,640 times
Reputation: 426
McCarthyism and the red scare it facilitated really amped up authoritarianism and propaganda in the US, putting many innocent people on blacklists and out of work for no good reason. Internationally we had the backing of and even installing of right wing authoritarian regimes and turning a blind eye to their offenses, all in the name of a giant pissing contest with the State Capitalist Soviet Union. So no, I think it was overall a very condemnable thing.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top