Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Winner, Aug 19, 2011.
Not unless his entire post history on CFC is parodic. Possible, but unlikely.
Didn't you read ama's post?
Yeah, yeah, we heard you the first time.
Why do I think of this when I read his posts?
Link to video.
Monty Python? Your a geek.
I have over 10,000 posts on a forum about a empire-building computer game, the vast majority come from OT where I spend my time arguing about everything from nuclear reactors to politics.
Of course I'm a geek. What was your first clue?
I don't know if Czechoslovakia was technically a "Soviet Republic," but it is doing very well! According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czech_Republic), it was the first developed COMECON country, and many communist countries (although not China) were members. Again, I don't know if it was a "Soviet Republic," but it was a socialist country for 50 years...
But it was also the most developed before the Soviets ever got near it, having been the industrial heartland of the Austro-Hungarian empire, so that has limited implications one way or the other. You'd need to do a very thorough analysis before you could come to many conclusions on that.
Good point. I guess that would tilt it in it's favor, wouldn't it?
As a non-communist, I will say it again: the countries Communism has been tried in pretty much were underdeveloped and didn't really have democratic tradition.
First, you need capitalism. Which western states do.
Then, you need democratic tradition. Which western states do.
What would happen if socialism was to take hold in a western nation? It hasn't been tried yet, and those "welfare" things don't count. That's not socialism, that's bread and circuses or liberalism, depending on who you ask.
Fortunately, we'd never had the "pleasure" of becoming a part of the USSR Soviet republics are those that were formerly parts of it, in the same way we speak of former Yugoslav republics.
As for how well we're doing - we're squandering our comparative advantages thanks to a constant political infighting. It's not that we're doing bad, but we should be doing much better.
Czechoslovakia was among the 10 most industrialized countries in the world before the war. One world war and 40 year of Communism (spiced by a major Soviet invasion) later, we're just a pathetic little developing country that's trying to regain some of its former wealth and confidence.
That's communism for you.
Correction: That's authoritarian state capitalism for you.
Actually, that's the spoils of war for you.
They thought a man too anti-communist for Winner couldn't be created....
they were wrong.
Well, at least you still exist as a country. Mind you', not for long if the Brussels lovers get their way.
Czechoslovakia doesn't exist as a country any more
As for the Brussels lovers, I am probably one of them, so...
I see two half-truths here.
First, the baltic states between the two world wars were both democratic and capitalistic. I believe there were other similar european states. I admit the tradition was not long and it was not very "developed" by todays standards - hence the half-truth not false - but it supposedly was compareable to finland by the end of the war. ( Maybe there is more exact figures about late 30's finland to get the idea). So the so-called communism has been tried and had failed ( as i have learned from first person witnesses a.k.a. grandparents and few other local sources ) to be applied on democratic/capitalist countries - everything went worse aside from heavy industry which was of course insanely subsidized.
Secondly it was not communism that was applied here. After learning from the "ask a red" thread and reading up on some links provided there - i have started to believe that all the so-called communist states actually were more like a fascist, with "a communist" being the nationality.
Totalitarian states just seems total antithesis of communism - one always draws most wealth from workers towards power - other aims to do the opposite.
But most people call what the soviets did "communism" so i guess thats half-true then.
So to conclude this rant: while it is true that communism has not been tried on capitalistic/democratic - i want to specify that it has not been tried at all. Concentrating power of any sort, to smaller group of people seems to me the opposite of communism.
Interestingly enough, i read a book about tribes in siberia that had sorts of communities going on that were closer to communism then anything "civilized" so far - until soviets came and forced state collectivism on them ruining their true communist lifestyle forever ( that was from a half-fiction book tho, so might be heavily exaggerated or not true at all )
As with the N Korea thread, this is another thread that is taking only a small glimpse...
Money (as reported)...
Even if any or some of these nations were financially better off, which didn't matter anyhow since the store shelves were bare, they are, for the most part, much freer...
Exceptions, I believe Belarus & Russia in particular have remained rather authoritarian. At least the Russians are blessed with the hero that is Vlad Putin, hunter of tigers, master of martial arts, race car driver, etc, etc, etc...
They weren't true marxist communist states... BUT, they were such extreme socialism that they have to be considered lenin communist states... true communism isn't really applied anywhere, because it is such a flawed theory. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, these states are the closest to communism... and therefore the practical definition of communism.
At least this time they're giving up their "countriness" on their own volition.
Nice try to distract from the USSR issue with your rampant anti-EU propaganda, though.
Semantics really, but I'll bite. Communism was attempted in many nations, but they lacked the economic and political development necessary to make the attempt result in anything other than a dictatorship.
Capitalism exists to make the full use of resources, and its striving for profit ensures that it keeps developing the economy for the better. The state sucks at this kind of planning, which is why socialism comes later on - socialism merely takes over what ages of capitalism have developed.
The state lays the groundwork for workers' democracy before abolishing itself or its hierarchy. Everything is democratic in one way or another.
I personally theorise that Communism will come about far later on - the theory of capitalism destroying itself couldn't be any more true. As more and more labor becomes automated, it becomes harder to hold a job, and in turn, harder to villify the proletariat. As well, lack of opportunity for advancement erases much of the idea that the system we have now is "meritocratic" - where the hard working and intelligent will work their way up. Can't do that if you don't have the opportunity to do so.
Separate names with a comma.