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.
Excerpt: “.....the Soviet Union was the first country in world history to have completely eliminated hunger, an achievement that countries as "developed" as the United States have never reached. “
Here from Wikipedia we learn that although the rapid shift from private farming to collective farms and rapid industrialization caused famines in Stalin’s 5-year plan in Ukraine and Mao Zedong’s Great Leap Forward, that ultimately these models were declared successful and rural peasants benefited by not having to be in servitude to one owner because of the collective arrangements.
"Collectivization brought undeniable benefits to some rural inhabitants, especially those who had owned little or no land. It freed them from laboring on the fields of others, and it increased their control over wages, lending to their daily existence a stability previously unknown to them." [12]
It took time
In Hungary, agricultural collectivization was attempted a number of times between 1948 and 1956 (with disastrous results), until it was finally successful in the early 1960s under János Kádár.
Subsidies and constant pressure destroyed the remaining private farmers; only a handful of them remained after the 1960s. The lifestyle of villagers had eventually reached the level of cities, and village poverty was eliminated
What is "other peoples money," when everyone is employed by the state and paid by the state?
A catchy phrase, that means nothing.
The communists were rich because they confiscated everything. All the aristocrats' wealth, all the natural resources, all the peasants' land. It lasted about 75 years, then reality started to dawn.
The communists were rich because they confiscated everything. All the aristocrats' wealth, all the natural resources, all the peasants' land. It lasted about 75 years, then reality started to dawn.
That’s what the west wants us to think, but if that were true, the worst years would be the latest years of the 75. Clearly there were ups and downs and cyclical peaceful episodes
Social Collectivism has NEVER worked.And never will. Why? Because humans are INDIVIDUALS. With different abilities ,dreams,and skills. "All Men Are Created Equal" is analogy.And INDIVIDUALS cannot be FORCED into a collective. This does not mean that teamwork does not exist.Many people prefer a team effort. But a FORCED team effort will never work. Like the US Army during the Vietnam War.The DRAFT was the biggest mistake the USA ever made. In essence, a FORCED collective never works. History has proven that.
What I have put in bold above undoubtedly explains the absolutely wretched record of the U.S. military draft and war effort in WW II no doubt. There were volunteers in abundance, but a draft was a necessary part of that war effort as well.
In all fairness though, length of a period doesn’t prove success either
Egyptian slavery lasted well over 1,000 years, 5 times longer than America to date and who knows we may not go another 800 years of American sovereignty. But this doesn’t mean Egyptian slavery worked great. Or it could mean miserable systems can last. And then it’s subjective did they work or not.
Ultimately if Ancient Egypt thrived that long, then it’s not crazy to believe a stricter line of leaders of a Communist Party can keep a Socialist Republic in tact and it was Gorbechev who caused the end. Does this mean it works? Maybe so.
Does America work? Arguably America works well economically when you define an economy entirely based on $$$$$$. But there’s many unhappy Americans, and the wealth inequality is extreme in America. And among those who have a lot of $$$$$ Are not exactly the most sophisticated worldly people nor are they using that $ in a happy way. Many are good at well...managing money. It’s not the only thing one ought to be good at in the universe
What I don’t see a lot of in America with all this money?
Economically Diverse Communities with common gatherings
Trust
Sharing of valuable items that can be used by multiple people easily “car sharing”, vacuum cleaner sharing, WiFi sharing, shared televisions, sharing of clothing, community get-together for meals and music
Income-diverse use of public transportation systems
Community gardening
Inventing stuff as a neighborhood project
Couch surfing
Street selling stuff unlicensed whatever you want to sell ...why that’s true capitalism but I don’t see much of this
Etc
Last edited by Siberiaboy; 03-28-2019 at 02:50 PM..
Just because you "lived at those times," doesn't mean that you "don't need researches for this."
I would never judge the attitude of people in the country overall by "me and mine."
I would definitely not judge the situation by my own surroundings as well.
What people were tired of by the end of the Soviet system, was the chaos and hardship crated by Gorbachev's "reforms" most likely.
But lo and behold, this is what's coming up recently more and more often;
The people who miss USSR divided to 3 groups.
1. Youngsters who never lived in USSR, are earning now 20k rubles in Mukhosransk and think that anything is better than now.
2. A tiny ideologic group of hardcore communists.
3. Older people in their 50-s and 60-s who miss the time when the *** stood like a stick and young hotties slept with them for free.
To all the people who miss USSR I tell one thing: Go out to supermarket and stand near the entry for 3 hours in the snow, and then go back with nothing.
In all fairness though, length of a period doesn’t prove success either
Egyptian slavery lasted well over 1,000 years, 5 times longer than America to date and who knows we may not go another 800 years of American sovereignty. But this doesn’t mean Egyptian slavery worked great. Or it could mean miserable systems can last. And then it’s subjective did they work or not.
Ultimately if Ancient Egypt thrived that long, then it’s not crazy to believe a stricter line of leaders of a Communist Party can keep a Socialist Republic in tact and it was Gorbechev who caused the end. Does this mean it works? Maybe so.
Does America work? Arguably America works well economically when you define an economy entirely based on $$$$$$.
You still don't address the Elephant in the Room. That is, the continuous murdering, torturing and jailing of large percentage (not talking about actual criminals here!) of the Population in the USSR and now Russia. This is part and parcel of the system and cannot be separated from it. Putin is, of course, the son of Stalins cook. This would be like Germany being ruled by Hitler's kin.....who had been in the SS!
So if it never worked in any way except perhaps in a war which killed off much of the young and middle aged male population, there is little reason it would work today or in the future.
It's not a question of whether America works.
As you well know, a decade or two ago Russian males were dying at about 55 (average) - 20+ years before their civilized counterparts in W. Europe and the USA. This has improved due to some quick oil money....most of which now went away.
Russia is largely an oil (or mineral...or resource based) economy, which is a relatively low form of modern economy. It's not diversified.
The same thing I'd say about Russia I would say about parts of the US that relied on resource extraction and funneled money to the Oligarchs "never has so little been done with so much"....
The future belongs to the productive and efficient and they currently reside in a large country Southeast of Russia.
Crony Oligarchy Capitalism, the current "system" in Russia, just cannot work out except for the 1% there.
First-the Soviet Union was socialist, not communist (in spite of the name chosen by the central party). Socialism is government ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods and services. Communism is (theoretically) the "next evolutionary step" after socialism where "government" no longer exists and ownership is by "society" and "the people" own everything and make up all the rules.
No one with half a brain would suggest that there was no government under the Soviet Union. There was-and like under virtually every socialist government, they were totalitarian or close to it.
The Soviet Union "died" because socialism is an utter failure as an economic system. It destroys productivity, output, innovation, any incentive to work or excel. By destroying any incentive for the best and brightest of their society to excel, to innovate, to produce-they ensure the misery and eventual starvation of their entire society-or at least those members that do not "work" for the government.
But true communism is a ridiculous idea. How would people know what the rules are with no government? How would the rules be enforced? It's just a silly fiction.
Very small primitive tribes have been known to exist without any formal government. That is true communism. But it depends on the group being very small, and all members being intimately related. And it depends on being in a remote area, and not having a lot of enemies to constantly fight off.
Maybe these little primitive tribes, who are generally peaceful and cooperative, are one of the inspirations for communism. But it does not work, cannot work, in large diverse societies like ours.
Also, notice that many communal societies have been developed in the US, and all have eventually failed. So even on a small scale communism is not a practical idea.
... and yet, oddly enough, the market-based 'social democracies' that follow the Nordic model are the most successful economic system known to man in terms of quality of life, happiness of the people, work-life balance, longevity, healthcare outcomes and infant mortality. Conservatives in the U.S. falsely slap the "socialist" label on the Nordic model but the two couldn't be more different.
Socialists in the US slap the "socialist" label on the nordic model. And they say "Look, socialism works great."
But Sweden, etc., are all capitalist. So it's more silliness.
For socialism to work, the money used to fund socialism needs to be income not accumulated wealth
I guess that's how it worked during Soviet times.
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.
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.
