VIVA the revolution

[Fifteenpiece]

after reading Ayn Rand, and yes she has flawed theories as well, i get a basic idea on what Communism did to Russians during the early years of it's inception. it basically reduced people's self-worth and relied on guilt to get things accomplished "if you don't work hard for your slovenly brother's needs, you aren't a good person" it turned moral values on it's head. there is no Golden Rule, there is no Kharma, whatever you want to call it. it's non-exsistent. all that is left in it's place is resentment. you start to resent those less fortunate then you because you have to work harder because they won't

Very good summation. The culture of resentment is a perfect metaphor...I havent read Ayn Rand in 20 years but you are ringing a bell with that.

Its interesting as an American seeing the many widely differing opinions posted on history, what is communism and the relative merit of the Soviet model. CIV IV boards certainly attracts the folks who can at least have constructive well though out arguments

My personal experience having working with many ex-Soviet scientists is that their knowledge, attention to detail and general context in hard science skills is outstanding (in particular mathethmatics, physics, chemistry) and is in a great part attributable to their primary school training. Now my understanding of the selection process it was fairly capricious, e.g. the state selecting who gets what knowledge/training but the results were fairly amazing. This picking of winners I suppose gets you...well...winners but it is debateable whether this helps society more in the long run (the winers becoming the resenters and the resenters wanting to move on)

But when you compare this against what the "freemarket" in the US has produced over the last 30 years (where being a lawyer/lobbyist/MBA etc is more highly valued and hard science skills suffer at the primary education system level) well I dont think the argument is as one-sided as some of my countrymen have made out.

I think the true delta between the the soviet/totalitarianism/communism and the west 1950-1980 was mostly in administration and the ability to move knowledge. The actual training and brains were greatly in parity but its incredibly difficult to accomplish things without the ability to share/collaborate freely; this attribute of Soviet/Chinese "communism" is not an artifact of Marx but of a totalitarian regime.

So for the sake of CIV IV arguments I'm not really sure where this fits in; perhaps "police state" is the most apt description of the Soviet/Chinese models.

Last thought, of the people I've known who had left the Soviet model (mostly mid-late 80s) and came to the US the reason I heard most was opportunity. I remember one exchange student my wife and I hosted (as a favor to a colleague) who was utterly amazed at the sheer variety of options we had (the supermarket was the favorite). Nothing enlightening there but it did make me realize in my gut just how alien that society was to our own and what gulfs systems of gov can actually create.

 

[Andrei_V]

I think the true delta between the the soviet/totalitarianism/communism and the west 1950-1980 was mostly in administration and the ability to move knowledge. The actual training and brains were greatly in parity but its incredibly difficult to accomplish things without the ability to share/collaborate freely;

I agree with that.

Also, even if the scientists come up with something, it is real hard to give it a practical use. An economy oriented in massive production is extremely inflexible in the sense of innovations. Once you set up assembly lines for some sort of goods, it is not so easy to stop them, especially taking into account that you cannot just lay off people, it's against the law, you must offer them an alternative job first.

And you are under a pressure of the "state plan", that means, you must produce XXX items by the end of the 5-year period no matter what. If you play with innovations, you can easily fail the plan. So, you are extremely skeptical about innovations, and keep producing goods that are 20- or 30- years behing the world standards.

The real problem is not science/education, but poor management, bureaucracy, and extreme inflexibility of the economy.

 

[MENGW]

From what I can tell on this thread, theres the open minded people and there are the brainwashed people

Open minded - do not like the system employed in soviet union, but sees the pros just as they see the cons
Brainwashed - Apollo, mostly for nationalistic/space race purpose, and consequently abandoned, somehow becomes the guideline for "space race victory" compared to first satlite/first man in space/first space station, which actually helped mankind in term of space exploration.
Feels "dirty" choosing commust civics, which in principle, much better than capitalist civics. the only only thing that the "libertarians" should feel "dirty" about is "police state", anything else is brainwashing at work.

Successful communism is just as good as successful democracy, communism was not successful because of human nature, and democracy isnt doing so well these days, preticularly in the states. Some americans might argue against this, just as some soviets will argue against there wasnt real equality in the soviet union, but history will have its judgement.
In principle
US: Freedom but no equality
Soviet union: Equality but no freedom.
Soviet failed both, US is struggling with freedom, which is close to being lost.
Both claim they had both, but again history have its judgement.

People dosnt move to the west from soviet states because of this "freedom", they move to the west because of money, its money, rather than the conveniant "they like our civic", that motivates soviet people to move to the west, just as americans today would go to "communist" china, dispite the "lack of freedom", as long as theres more money to be made.

One would think, after playing civilization, people would see how international diplomacy works. The strong survives, the weak perish, America was strong, both military/technology/economy, while soviet union lacked economy and consequently draged behind in military/technology. Civic is just a conveniant propaganda tool, in the end, its the one with the "highest score" that destroys the one with less.

 

[Perfect_Blue]

Just a note; It seems that most folks seem to be using the standard American understanding of what a liberal is. No problem with this per se, except for some reason it is exactly the opposite (well, sort of) way the rest of the world and political scientists understand this term.

Both American Democrats and Republicans are Liberals by the world standard.

 

[crocodiledundee]

To be truly communist you should also:

1) Keep 20 years behind in tech

2) Have empty (~no) supermarkets, markets or grocers - and no luxuries

3) Gift any great people you get to the competition

4) Have no religious buildings

5) Purge your entire military in a fit of paranoia

6) ? Anyone?

Love your top 5

I admit mine are all based on the USSR:

6) Periodically destroy city improvements; blame on enemy agents instead of complete lack of training and ridiculous production targets.

7) Pay to import foreign experts to re-build improvements after giving away your own great people.

8) If none available, cull population to complete projects.

9) Export essential food resources in return for strategic resources.

10) Ignore ugly green face next to city; take no steps to fix it.

11) Dig up resources ASAP; sell surplus to the enemy, then buy it back when you run out.

12) Contradict yourself in diplomacy at least once every five turns and in every UN vote.

13) Share military information with belligerent neighbours.

14) Have no troops anywhere near the border to deal with an invasion.

15) Weakened units may not go behind the lines to heal. If they attempt to, they are cowards and must be shot.

 

[gotmatt]

15) Weakened units may not go behind the lines to heal. If they attempt to, they are cowards and must be shot.

seems as though someone else has read "Red Storm Rising"

seriously though, the Soviet model is what happens to "liberal" (the american version as one poster aptly pointed out) countries that go extreme left. Nazi germany and much of the middle east is what happens when countries go extreme right.

i don't like the "left" and "right" though. it assumes that if someone leans a little right they are nazis and if someone leans left they are commies. i know everyone here has eiter been called and/or has called someone that in a political debate.


i prefer the libertarian spawned "smallest political quiz". the Diamond is MUCH more accurate at predicting where one falls, wether it's totalitarian communism, or libertarian (near anarchistic in nature ) conservativism.

it leaves A LOT of room for people to place themselves in the middle.

EDIT: just so you know, i don't neccesarily agree with the obviously biased quiz itself, just the idea that it is 2-dimensional and therefore more accurate if you were to position yourself on the diamond through your own known beliefs.

antoher edit: here's a link to a more in depth political quiz... that is less biased.
http://www.quiz2d.com/quiz/quiz.php?from=homepage

 

[Perfect_Blue]

seriously though, the Soviet model is what happens to "liberal" countries that go extreme left.

How so? The USSR rose out of Fuedalism (Tzars), not a 'liberal' system by any means, and to me at least, it would seem as though it shot 'right' more so than 'left.'

 

[gotmatt]

How so? The USSR rose out of Fuedalism (Tzars), not a 'liberal' system by any means, and to me at least, it would seem as though it shot 'right' more so than 'left.'

"liberal", by american standards, and leftist go hand in hand. in the end, no matter how you dress it up, Communism is an economic system that while sounds rosy and nice in theory, in practical application it draws only leftists or totalitarianists and sometimes both. just look at South America as an example to my point. the conservative gov'ts of south america employ crazy militarist death squads to control the equally deadly and insane leftist seperatists. it's a never ending cycle like that. both of the extremes are totalitarian in nature, one is totalitarian in personal freedoms, the other in economic.

leftists are the economic totalitarianists. communism plays right into that. it also plays right into some future dictators hands because he can apply Machiavellian-style beliefs through it. "tell the people what they want to hear, and do what you want anyway". in the end who cares if you're allowed to do whatever you want with whomever you want, the man with the most money is really in control. the question do you give that control freely to a totalitarian gov't or do you risk it in a free market? the free market choice gives you just that. choice.

now if there were some way to combine that with personal freedoms we'd have the perfect form of gov't... oh wait! libertarianism seriously, it'll never happen, because just like ppure communism is a piepdream, to expect humans to exercise enough control to be pure libertarians is just nuts.

FWIW, i used to be a libertarian... i was punker in HS and all of those guys are extremist Che Gueverra loving communists... and i'm just not down with human slaughter in the name of any -ism. i was still ticked at the system at the time. in the words of the creators of South Park "we hate republicans, but we REALLY F*&%$%$ hate democrats" that's about how i felt, but i couldn't adhere to the communists because, like i said, pipedream. i went libertarian, read Rand, and then after i had my first kid i realized i was nuts. it's just as much of a pipedream.

 

[Perfect_Blue]

To the final bit I might say that something only becomes a "pipedream" when one completely negates possibility. Though I am certainly no idealist, I think negating possibility is what keeps people trapped in systems (political, economic, and what have you). When I 'admit' something cannot happen, then it surely cannot, for I would have already manifested a failing destiny; thus the pipedream. By the way, this is a purely subjective rant; nature of perception and causality if you will. This is not meant as any sort of defense or endorsement of Marxism/Communism; though I must appear a supporter, really I just think Marx had some interesting critiques, a commanding perception of the situation before him, in his own way. I don't necessarily agree with the course of action he laid out, or as Marx saw it, that revolutionary evoltion necessarily had to take place, or that it would at all.
I do feel it is a bit of a shame at least that no real Marxist revolution took place (edit: has yet to take place). At least then the world could see the result of the praxis Marx called for, and judge it based on the grounds of its own tangible results. Maybe it wouldn't 'work' per se, but at least it wouldn't have been the Russian or Chinese 'Communist' farces.

 

[nzcamel]

Marxism/Communisim cannot work. Until it can add in the Western Democratic view that 'all men are corrutable' and 'ultimate power corrupts ultimately' it will always leave the masses exposed to the mistakes and failings of the few who end up in power.
This is why in a True Democracy power is spread thin. Ineffiecent in the short term. Efficent in the long term. Democracy is not about the will of the people; it is about limiting the power of the leaders.