Communism - Page 3 - Historum

**arras** · July 30th, 2012, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KGB

Was it so bad in Asutro-Hungary?

I thin all these things were available in any capitalistic European country....

They were available in Western Europe (some of them, clearly not public transport and some other things). You should note, that Eastern Europe was lacking behind Western since cca 18th ct. Just compare some leading Western European countries and Eastern ones. Slovakia was among more industrialized parts of Kingdom of Hungary. However in comparison to say France or Britain or Italy it was but large village at the end of WWI and to large extend still at the beginning of WWII.

This lacking is not accidental, it is caused by centres of world capitalism been in the Western Europe and Northern America. Note that after we reverted back to capitalism, we also immediately "fell in to the old rank". We are again lacking behind and after 20 years of capitalism there is no sign of improvement. We are protectorates of the West, both in economical and political sense. Just look who owns your economy and media and whose wars your soldiers fight.

**arras** · July 30th, 2012, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KGB

There were relatively high (according the socialistic measures, not he Western!) standarts only in Chechoslpvacia, GDR and Hungary.

Ask Russians about the high standards.....

There of course were differences. But that is natural. You have to compare average socialistic country with average capitalistic one. Not best of them. It is true that Western European capitalistic countries had generally higher living standard. However those were not only capitalistic countries in the world. There are capitalistic countries with very poor living standard and those constitute majority of capitalistic countries.

It was the same as with comparing individual societies:
Capitalism causes extreme social differences. Socialism creates nearly egalitarian society. Living standard of people in socialism is much lower than that of richest in capitalism but also higher than poorest in capitalism. It is same on national level: Socialistic countries had lower living standard than richest capitalistic countries but higher than poorest ones. It is caused by distribution of wealth, which works inside individual societies as well as between them.

viking · July 30th, 2012, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shinobu Sensui

If we're talking about the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, I'd say there is some things to keep in mind.

People defiantly had to work long hours, but it defiantly wasn't just because of greedy businessmen. The long hours and hard work put into the beginnings of the Industrial age had a lot to do with the poor output of workers that needed the long days to adequately produce the necessary amount of consumer goods that were most likely, scarce in that period to ensure even a minimum standard of living.

Eventually, businesses are able to invest in capital that enables workers to produce more then before, and with the increase of material goods it renders them less expensive. This is what rose real wages, and decreased the long necessary hours needed for production.

That's not to say there weren't abuses! Realistically, though no system no will ever truly get rid of all excesses. Whatever it be a Free Market, Regulated Capitalism, Fascism, Socialism, or Communism.

There is so much here I disagree with that I wonder where the backing for such assertions comes from. I am tempted to reply but to do so would require a long reply which would derail this thread entirely. Best to open a new thread or to raise your points in a thread on The Industrial Revolution. Whichever you choose, I'd be only too happy to debate your argument.

General Winter · July 30th, 2012, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arras

Problem with Communism is that it really is utopian. And it is utopian because it does not work with human nature. It need perfect, or at last more perfect human to work. Therefore Communists attempted to create such perfect human and as such attempts of social engineering always do, it led do quit colossal bloodshed and repression (though not as colossal as is claimed by its opponents, certainly not larger than caused by capitalism). It is logical: only way to change what is natural is by force. And at the end all that repression was for nothing, you can not change human nature.

At first. The cause of repressions was not a hunan nature.The point is that every progressive movement hurts interests of a certain part of society whose welfare is associated with the old order.The more this movement radical,the more interests of conservators it hurts,the greater resistance it causes.In the USSR revolutionary transformation lasted till the middle of 1930s,that's why it was a period of a sharpest class struggle and bloodshed.But well-established new system was not so repressive.If we compare the USSR and the USA of 1950s -1980s we'll see that the Soviet regime was much milder.

At second. Even an amoeba is capable to change adapting to a changed environment.Hell,where did all of you get the idea that the human nature is unchangable? Change the conditions of human life and you'll change its nature.

The hunanity lived under the primeval communism during the 99% of it's history.Where is here an incompatibility of communism with the human nature?

Communism is possible.It is possible to socialize the economy and give it a task to work not fpr profit but for a satisfaction of reasonable human needs.The new economy will be crisis-free because the society will be able to consume all that was produced.It's consumption will not be limited by the effective demand and the market.A single human association will replace competition and the fight of all agaist all.An increasing productivity will not lead to overstocking,crisis and unemployment,but to the reduction in working hours.

Communism is the only way to solve the problems created by capitalism.How can we make our productive forces to operate normally, to benefit people? Only destroying the fetters of of the market and capitalist productive relations, then the existing productive forces will be able to solve problems of hunger,poverty and affordable housing for everyone.

Delenda est Roma · July 30th, 2012, 08:50 PM

http://www.memo.ru/library/arh_eng.pdf
Russia

Hungarian Revolution (1956)

Main article: Hungarian Revolution of 1956
According to the United Nations Report of the Special Committee on the problem of Hungary (1957):

Soviet tanks fired indiscriminately at every building from which they believed themselves to be under fire.[94]
The UN commission received numerous reports of Soviet mortar and artillery fire into inhabited quarters in the Buda section of the city despite no return fire and of "haphazard shooting at defenseless passers-by."

According to many witnesses, Soviet troops fired upon people queueing outside stores. Most of the victims were said to be women and children. Many cases of Soviet shooting at ambulances and red cross vehicles were reported.[citation needed]

Czechoslovakia (1968)

Further information: Prague Spring
During the Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia, 72 Czechs and Slovaks were killed (19 of those in Slovakia), 266 severely wounded and another 436 slightly injured.[95][96]

Afghanistan (1979–1989)

Further information: Soviet war in Afghanistan
Soviet war crimes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lithuania 1944- 1953: Europe

KGB · July 30th, 2012, 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arras

Yes USSR showed, that more egalitarian and just society than contemporary capitalism is possible. However in those 70 years USSR also failed to construct Communism itself. And then it fell, betrayed by its own Communistic elites as KGB pointed out.

Problem with Communism is that it really is utopian. And it is utopian because it does not work with human nature. It need perfect, or at last more perfect human to work. Therefore Communists attempted to create such perfect human and as such attempts of social engineering always do, it led do quit colossal bloodshed and repression (though not as colossal as is claimed by its opponents, certainly not larger than caused by capitalism). It is logical: only way to change what is natural is by force. And at the end all that repression was for nothing, you can not change human nature.

While I am opposed to those, who accuse former system of things it was newer guilty of, I also can not agree that it was flawless. Indeed it was full of faults and in 70 and 80ties it was ripe for change. However this change should have been reform, not exchange for this even more outdated and more idiotic socio-economic system called capitalism and "democracy" (while in reality it have nothing to do with real democracy and everything to do with mass control by plutocratic elite).

Communism was designed to replace Capitalism and to remove its wrongdoings. That after 80 years of Socialism we reverted back to Capitalism is great tragedy for our countries and Eastern Europe is going to pay heavy price for it. Only hope I have is that we will not forget lessons of Socialism and Communism and we will be thus better prepared for changes in the world which awaits us, than Western nations which newer experienced it. And changes do await us: as Communism rooted from within, Capitalism is doing same right now.

Future is clear: it is either future in which people cooperate and share or no future at all.

But, Aras, communism was not design to correct capitalism, it was design to enslave nations! It did not correct anything, it just deepened the capitalist wrongdoing.

To wait for a car 10 years, not to be able to buy what house you want, to look for a deficit goods with days and weeks, is this cooperation??

Yes, the capialism needs corrections, bit they are certainly not those.

KGB · July 30th, 2012, 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by General Winter

At first. The cause of repressions was not a hunan nature.The point is that every progressive movement hurts interests of a certain part of society whose welfare is associated with the old order.The more this movement radical,the more interests of conservators it hurts,the greater resistance it causes.In the USSR revolutionary transformation lasted till the middle of 1930s,that's why it was a period of a sharpest class struggle and bloodshed.But well-established new system was not so repressive.If we compare the USSR and the USA of 1950s -1980s we'll see that the Soviet regime was much milder.

At second. Even an amoeba is capable to change adapting to a changed environment.Hell,where did all of you get the idea that the human nature is unchangable? Change the conditions of human life and you'll change its nature.

The hunanity lived under the primeval communism during the 99% of it's history.Where is here an incompatibility of communism with the human nature?

Communism is possible.It is possible to socialize the economy and give it a task to work not fpr profit but for a satisfaction of reasonable human needs.The new economy will be crisis-free because the society will be able to consume all that was produced.It's consumption will not be limited by the effective demand and the market.A single human association will replace competition and the fight of all agaist all.An increasing productivity will not lead to overstocking,crisis and unemployment,but to the reduction in working hours.

Communism is the only way to solve the problems created by capitalism.How can we make our productive forces to operate normally, to benefit people? Only destroying the fetters of of the market and capitalist productive relations, then the existing productive forces will be able to solve problems of hunger,poverty and affordable housing for everyone.

This is complete utopia. Communists had all the power, no limits, for 70 years and never ever did what you say. They just repeated, and repeated, and repeated that and never did it.

NOT AGAIN. If you want, you make this in your own home, but do not offer this again to the ppl.

It is clearly impossible. To socialize eceonomy means simply to take from the ppl their econoimcal assets and to give them to the state. The state is the worst owner ever born. We will start queues, empty stores. You are obviously young and do not know about that.

It is historicaly, socialy and politicaly proven that socialism is impossible. What will you do, if ppl do not want to give their property?
NKVD? GULAG? Revolutionary necessity? Class struggle?

Of course.

fuser · July 30th, 2012, 11:48 PM

What is "Human Nature" anyway? Is it something that never changes and is constant?
This "human nature" argument is a very poor one and only things that are natural to human beings are eating, sex and sleeping.

Beside there are countless pseudo arguments that can be given to demonstrate the incompatibility of human nature and the present system and they all are bollocks as there is no such thing as "universal constant human nature".

General Winter · July 30th, 2012, 11:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KGB

This is complete utopia. Communists had all the power, no limits, for 70 years and never ever did what you say.

What was never done? Soviet economy didn't work for satisfaction of reasonable human needs? It wasn't crisis free? It didn't solve problems of hunger,poverty and affordable housing for everyone ? You are lying if you assert this.

You can repeat on and on that communism is utopia - but you can't do anything with a fact that communism have made Russia a superpower and it's defeat was the defeat of Russia.Bulgaria,I believe, didn't begin live better,too.