Reclaiming the Swastika

[strijder20]

Some ideas can be "extracted" from communism and mixed with / incorporated into capitalist and democratic societies, to improve them..

Yes, economic planning really became popular in capitalist societies because of the success it had in the U.S.S.R.

"Pure communism" is maybe actually not such a bad idea, but is impossible to implement in developed societies (maybe you can try with hunter-gatherers!).

Impossible is such a harsh word, but I agree with you that communism doesn't seem to establish itself easily.

 

[Domen]

because of the success it had in the U.S.S.R.

It had some success in the USSR, but generally speaking, communist economy simply could not achieve the same pace of development and GDP growth as capitalist economy. And this is undisputable fact. Communist countries were developing and improving the quality of life of their citizens, but the speed of that development was slower than in capitalist states. It should also be noted, that the USSR was economically exploiting other countries of the Communist Bloc.

So development of the USSR was taking place also at the expense of other countries of the Bloc, rather than only by its own power.

 

[warpus]

Mind you we had shortages in Poland in the 80s, so life was not exactly always improving. I think the USSR experienced similar things, so it can't be fully blamed on the USSR exploiting us, taking our resources, and so on.

 

[Domen]

Warpus, you have broken the rule.

so life was not exactly always improving.

Compared to pre-war situation, it certainly was improving (usually, except some periods of crisis like the 80s).

=================================

Immediately after the transformation from communism to capitalism at the turns of 80s and 90s, poverty in many countries of the former Communist Bloc actually increased, rather than decreasing. I put the blame for this on the fact, that communist system largely killed the enterprising spirit as well as much of the resourcefulness among the society. Communist system was a system where the state took care of many matters of life of individuals. After the fall of communism those people suddenly found themselves in a totally new reality, where - unlike previously - they had to take care of themselves.

Many of them simply could not easily adapt to new conditions. Unemployment rapidly increased, etc.

Another thing is, that the transformation was not done in the best way it could be done.

For example privatization was done in an incorrect way and perhaps too fast.

Many Westerners do not realize the hardships of transformation which took place in Eastern Europe after the Iron Curtain fell.

 

[Domen]

There was even "Swastika City":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkaim

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sintashta-Petrovka

http://www.newdawnmagazine.com/arti...ncient-city-the-arctic-origin-of-civilisation

 

[Borachio]

(Note to myself: don't mention any European countries. Just to be on the safe side.)

The earliest archaeological evidence of swastika-shaped ornaments dates back to the Indus Valley Civilization as well as the Mediterranean Classical Antiquity and paleolithic Europe. Swastikas have also been used in various other ancient civilizations around the world including Turkic, India, Iran, Nepal, China, Japan, Korea and Europe. It remains widely used in Indian religions, specifically in Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism, primarily as a tantric symbol to evoke shakti or the sacred symbol of auspiciousness. The word "swastika" comes from the Sanskrit svastika - "su" (meaning "good" or "auspicious") combined with "asti" (meaning "it is"), along with the diminutive suffix "ka." The swastika literally means "it is good." The name "sauwastika" is sometimes given to the left-facing arms symbol, which is a mirror image of swastika (&#21325

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika

So, which is it to be - the sauwastika or the swastika? Bearing in mind that a flag with a swastika on it will automatically have a sauwastika on the other side.

 

[Crezth]

Mind you we had shortages in Poland in the 80s, so life was not exactly always improving. I think the USSR experienced similar things, so it can't be fully blamed on the USSR exploiting us, taking our resources, and so on.

Well, shortages in West Slavic Land and Russia can be largely attributed to poor agricultural practices, so... yeah. I think you can safely blame the Soviet Union.

 

[Ajidica]

Would those shortfalls in production still have been present under a free market system? The free market generally gets around shortages by pricing goods out of the reach of some individuals- yet resulting in a similar situation.
I know that food production was a serious worry in the USSR, but how much of that was due to lack of resources/poor biological sciences and how much was due to actively damaging policies?

 

[Tahuti]

Would those shortfalls in production still have been present under a free market system? The free market generally gets around shortages by pricing goods out of the reach of some individuals- yet resulting in a similar situation.
I know that food production was a serious worry in the USSR, but how much of that was due to lack of resources/poor biological sciences and how much was due to actively damaging policies?

Well, the USSR was a small coalition state meaning that relatively few people actually had an imput in governing. Unlike liberal democracies, its leadership could ignore the suffering of the populace because it wouldn't cost them their job, and helping them probably even would, unlike liberal democracies, which have to take into account voters.

Neither free markets nor central planning are inherently superior to each other, since "free markets" and "central planning" are not economic decisions, but only refers to who is making the decisions. It is true that the decentralised nature of markets generally disincentivises economic decisions that may lead to shortages, but if the USSR had been more democratic, it may have had more success in equitably and adequately producing and distributing food while retaining a system of central planning. Free markets allow people to make both poor and good decisions and there in lies both its strength and weakness. Central planning relies entirely on the decisionmaking prowess of the government and if the government fails, the consequences are devastating, yet if the results are good, errors are stamped out: It is however unlikely that governments will ever get it 100% right, just like with individuals.

 

[Domen]

Would those shortfalls in production still have been present under a free market system? The free market generally gets around shortages by pricing goods out of the reach of some individuals- yet resulting in a similar situation.
I know that food production was a serious worry in the USSR, but how much of that was due to lack of resources/poor biological sciences and how much was due to actively damaging policies?

I did not study economics but nethertheless I had subject "economics" at the university. The main fault of central planning in economy is that you cannnot always accurately predict scale of demand - so in centrally planned economy supply of goods is usually either higher or lower than demand for goods, while in free market economy the laws of supply and demand work properly and automatically regulate the balance, resulting in market equilibrium.

So my answer to your question is - no, in a free market system those shortfalls in production would not have been present in long terms.

Shortfalls in production resulted from wrong predictions of demand, and thus from regulating supply (production) at insufficient level.

 

[Domen]

Well, shortages in (...) Russia can be largely attributed to poor agricultural practices, so... yeah. I think you can safely blame the Soviet Union.

Regarding Soviet Russia - this is true. Let me quote one example (as an exception to rule from page 4):

My father once travelled by train from one part of Poland to another part of Poland via Soviet territory. He fell asleep while travelling, but when he woke up, he knew that he was in the Soviet Union immediately after he noticed the crops (the train was just moving through some Soviet farmlands).

He could see the ground between stalks of grain - so sparsely cultivated was that Soviet field. And that was time shortly before harvest!

There were also jokes about "farms where they plant potatoes on Friday and dig them out on Monday" popular at that time in Poland.

Of course those jokes were about Soviet kolkhozes. Question: "But what about time necessary for vegetation?". Answer: "But people need to eat!".

That was "proficiency" of Soviet agriculture and Soviet kolkhozes (collective farms) - at which every private farmer in Communist Poland simply laughed.

And my father's brother is a farmer - so he knows something about farming (he often helped his brother during harvest when he was young).

============================================

In some countries of the Communist Bloc - unlike in the SU - private property in agriculture survived, even though collective farms also existed.

 

[Heretic_Cata]

I don't mind the swastika, it's cool. I don't understand why people want to redeem it now. It's not relevant at all what it symbolized before WW2, you're talking about a symbol burned into the consciousness of every person in the western world.
It's like trying to convince people that this:

Spoiler :

means the staff of Apollo.

Or trying to convince people that this

Spoiler :

isn't a satanist symbol.

Or that this:

Spoiler :

Is the rune of death (inverted life rune).

Anyway there is one particular symbol of ignorance, death and suffering that should be banned, yet you see it everywhere these days.

Spoiler :

 

[Angst]

That was primitive democracy, not Communism.

HEY KIDS

communism is incompatible with democracy

because democracy totally requires a capitalist economy

communism has totally strict implications of rule, and is not at all all about redistribution while vaguely claiming stuff like dictatorship of the proletariat

also stalinism is sole representation of communism

therefore if discussing communism, ignore marx, quote stalin death tolls, profit

eg social democracy as influenced by communist thought is inconsequential because it does not fit true idealist labels according to a purist-political worldview

 

[illram]

Moderator Action: Locked, since you guys refuse to stop Polanding the thread. This is why we can't have nice things.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889