Connection ErrorBad RequestSession ExpiredSign in requiredForbiddenNot FoundToo Many RequestsServer ErrorBad GatewayService UnavailableGateway TimeoutHTTP Version Not Supported
Session Expired
Your session has expired. Please log in to continue.
Sign in required
You need an account to do that. Sign in or create one — it only takes a minute.
Request Failed
We encountered an issue while processing your request.
Please check your internet connection and try again.
Where were we heading? Rephrase the question: where could we possibly have been heading? Two possible scenarios come to mind: 1) towards communism. I doubt there are people on this forum who believe that communism is a good thing.
So, why isn't communism "a good thing"? Communism is not feasible, it's utopian, but what's wrong with it? "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" – this is the concept of a communist economy (I didn't come up with it); socialism was considered a transitional stage from capitalism to communism – we can talk about its shortcomings, but not about the utopian communism that could not be built for the same reason that the ideas of Leo Tolstoy turned out to be untenable: too much reliance on spiritual purity and naivety. Honestly, if there is a weak link in the idea of communism, it is us, people. Who would rush from Moscow now to build the Baikal-Amur Mainline (BAM) purely out of youthful enthusiasm? No, thank you, we love our homeland, but we value our own wallets more.
Added 1 hour 17 minutes ago Gur;84760
This state killed more than a million of its most capable citizens during the period of collectivization, breaking the back of the Russian peasantry (and let's not blame only Stalin for this, but rather read Marx and understand that a collective farm, albeit in a more rigid form, is an integral part of this system), and you say that it cared about its people.
Have you been to Russian villages lately? Is the Russian peasantry doing well now? The people who used to have jobs in collective farms are now left without work, unwanted by anyone. Is replacing free farmers with collective farms a good thing? And is giving them nothing at all a good thing? At least it's cheap and effective. You can arrange things for yourselves... this is the FREEDOM we gave you.Gur;84760
And was there any care at all? It was care without any right to personal initiative.
Is the current lack of care better? The state exists precisely to "care" for its citizens. Let's take an example for clarity: which mother looks more dignified – the one who takes care of her child, strictly demanding that they be home by a certain time, checking all their school grades, filtering their friends, choosing which sections and clubs they should attend... or the mother who simply leaves the child to their own devices: let them run around somewhere... they'll gain some wisdom on their own?
Берсерк
Auto-translated
Slonysh, you simply don't understand what you are talking about. Look into what communism did in China, how many millions of people died there as well (and not just in the USSR). Would you ask those peasants if they want to be in collective farms, if they want everything taken from them and labor-days introduced, if they want this? This is not happening or did not happen to you, which is why you easily "twist" concepts that hide a grim truth. Communism is totalitarian and, in my view, almost equal to fascism. It goes without saying that there is a difference in the status and property of an ordinary citizen and a party official. The latter remember former times with a sense of loss...
If the USSR and communism existed now, you would be a completely different person; it's unlikely you would even be allowed access to the internet, just like everyone else. The internet is information, and communists insist that life is best under them. Books, music, magazines, TV... You have already formed as a personality, and you simply cannot imagine how strikingly different you would be if they deprived you of all this.
Little elephant, you simply don't understand what you're talking about. Look into what communism did in China, how many millions of people died there (and not just in the USSR). Would you ask those peasants if they want to join collective farms, if they want everything taken away from them and replaced with labor days, if they want that?
Since the topic is specifically the USSR, let me not think about China. And what has communism done there, if not a single country has yet managed to build it? If you are so well-versed in political economy, why do you confuse socialism with communism? Or did you not live in the USSR? But I did, and that's why I have a clear idea of what kind of system I lived under. Under socialism, I emphasize. Tell me, is the best way to cure dandruff to chop off your head? If a collective farm is bad, then let's destroy it... and that's it? What about the people? Where will the people go? This is what is called "we will destroy the whole world of violence to its foundations, and then..." And what then? Berserk;85255
If the USSR and communism existed now, you would be a completely different person; they probably wouldn't even let you near the internet, just like everyone else. The internet is information, and communists claim that they have the best life. Books, music, magazines, TV... You have already formed as a personality, and you simply cannot imagine how drastically you would be different if you were deprived of all this.
However, the USA allows its citizens to access the internet, and yet they also impose "their truth" and instill the idea that "they have the best life." You need to put on rose-colored glasses from childhood, so that no "enemy voices" can dissuade true patriots. You see, a state of the level of the USA or the USSR cannot live by the same principles as Switzerland. A powerful, mind-numbing ideology is needed: "We are better than everyone else!", otherwise it is simply impossible to keep such a "giant" afloat.
. By the way, high-ranking politicians often ask this rhetorical question; what do you think is the reason? It's simply, as they say now, a way of shifting the blame. It's like saying you are to blame for everything being so bad in the country. [QUOTE] Sage, here's a question to ponder. In the city where I was born and live, there is an ice cream Factory. The financial situation of this enterprise leaves much to be desired. Every month, the employees of this organization take away several tons of ice cream. Hence the question. In this situation, what is the cause and what is the effect: is the enterprise performing poorly because its employees are stealing, or are the employees stealing because the enterprise is functioning poorly?
Added after 18 minutes Slonysh;85271
Since the topic is specifically about the USSR, let me not think about China. And what did communism do there if no country has yet been able to build it? If you are so well-versed in political economy, why do you confuse socialism with communism? Or did you not live in the USSR? But I did, and therefore I have a clear idea of what kind of system I lived under. Under socialism, I emphasize. Tell me, is the best way to cure dandruff to cut off your head? If a collective farm is bad, then let's destroy it... and that's it? And what about the people? Where will we put them? The point is not whether to destroy the collective farm or not, but whether it was necessary to create it at all. Where will we put the people? It was not necessary to deprive them of what they had earned through their own labor, and then we would not have to ask ourselves where to put them. And also, regarding the people who were left out and who used to have work in collective farms. The collective farm only gave work to lazy people among the rural population. Free farmers are better. History proves this. After the free farmers, the communists had something to build collective farms on; after the collective farms, the villages, excuse me, went to hell. And nothing needed to be given to the free farmers before the introduction of collective farms, because they had already received it all through their hard work. And they managed on their own because they were given freedom.
. The point is not whether to destroy the kolkhoz or not, the point is whether it should have been created at all. Where are the people supposed to go? They shouldn't have been deprived of what they earned through their own labor, and then we wouldn't be asking where to put them.
Listen, but this is just demagoguery! Imagine if Alexander II had said: "The point is not how to fight serfdom, the point is why our unpleasant predecessors established serfdom in the first place! Let's discuss this... let's curse those scoundrels! And then we'll go our separate ways." We are not talking about the perfection of the USSR, but about the fact that the current state is an order of magnitude worse than the USSR. Consequently, the collapse of the USSR was a wrong step. One can only break down the old order if one builds something better upon its ruins. Do you see the difference between a child building a sand castle instead of little sand cakes, and a child who simply runs up and kicks those very sand cakes to pieces?..
Starhan
Auto-translated
In short, I also think it's better to have stability and social security than freedom of speech (which mainly manifests as undermining the authorities).
Алекс_П
Auto-translated
Hundreds of peoples with nothing in common, forcibly included in the Empire/Federation, and who cannot leave voluntarily.
Ukraine was not forced into the Union, and neither were many other republics. There were undeniable drawbacks to this "communal living," but we were a unified state that was respected. The collapse of the Union primarily benefits those who prefer to be "independent" rulers and do not want to share their wealth. It is easier to survive as a large family, and now, instead of the Union, we have a group of weak states with ruined economies. I am more than confident that cultured people, who are tolerant of each other, can find compromises for cooperation. The collapse of the USSR shows that before the Union, we were simply "not ready." And the right of republics
Listen, but this is demagoguery! Imagine if Alexander II had said: "The point is not how to fight serfdom, but why our bad predecessors established serfdom! Let's discuss this...let's criticize them, those scoundrels! And then we'll leave." We are not talking about the ideal nature of the USSR, but about the fact that the current state is an order of magnitude worse than the USSR. And therefore, the collapse of the USSR was a wrong step. One can only break the old order if one builds a better one on its ruins. Do you see the difference between a child building a sand castle instead of making little mounds, and a child who simply runs up and kicks those mounds over?...
I just can't understand who here is engaging in demagoguery, besides, perhaps, you, Slonysh. The fact that I sincerely sympathize with my great-grandfather, who was deprived of everything he earned through his labor by the communists through the creation of collective farms, is anything but demagoguery. Demagoguery (from Greek: Demos - people + Ago - I lead) is a form of manipulating the masses through appeals, promises, and slogans that lack real substance. If anyone engaged in demagoguery, it was the communists, saying that they would build communism, and with it, paradise on Earth. Communism is unreal not because humanity is so bad and does not strive for "spiritual purity and idealism," but because it is unreal as an economic formation, and the communist slogan "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" is also populist. Because the main property of needs is their unlimited nature; as one set of needs, of a lower level, is satisfied, others, of a higher level, appear. Resources to satisfy needs are limited, regardless of what system is in place and what the level of morality is in society. And only the communists "set" themselves the goal of satisfying all needs. Therefore, today's system is definitely better than the previous one, because it does not set itself the delusional goal of eliminating money and the effect of alternative costs in conditions of limited resources. The main goal of most modern democracies is to create a society with equal STARTING opportunities, i.e., a society where everyone can become a janitor or a president. The state should only take care of (in the sense of providing benefits) those who, for example, are disabled and limited in their ability to realize their potential. Or, simply put, today's system is better, perhaps only because it introduced the concept of "freedom to," instead of the Soviet "freedom from."
Берсерк
Auto-translated
I fully agree with Gura, and I find your arguments, Slonysh, to be extremely unfounded. Are we discussing socialism? There was a special form of socialism there, called communism. Or did you not live there? Countries with a socialist orientation are one thing. Countries with communism are another. And you clearly don't know anything about China. I won't fill in your knowledge gaps. I repeat, there are people who like to be slaves to a totalitarian order, who are willing to wear rose-colored glasses, watch what they are shown, and act as they are told. Go back to the Matrix, Slonysh, because America, unlike the USSR, has not outlived itself and will not outlive itself, no matter how much it is slandered.
lopetos
Auto-translated
You guys are using so many smart words here! You should go into politics! You could stand on a podium and tell everyone how great democracy is and how bad communism was! But I would still gladly live forty years ago, so I wouldn't have to experience this so-called great democracy.
Клан"Yan-luo-Wan" Зло как и добро имеет своих героев!!!
The main goal of most modern democracies is to create a society with equal STARTING opportunities, i.e., a society where everyone can become a janitor or a president.
If you really think so, then I sincerely feel sorry for you. People have never had, do not have, and will never have equal opportunities.
Added 9 minutes later Gur;85272
. Sage, a question for thought. In the city where I was born and live, there is an ice cream Factory. The financial condition of this enterprise leaves much to be desired. Every month, the employees of this organization take out several tons of ice cream. Hence the question. What is the cause and what is the effect in this situation: is the enterprise performing poorly because its employees are stealing, or are the employees stealing because the enterprise is functioning poorly?
The enterprise is functioning poorly, and that's why they are stealing; in particular, the security guards don't care, and apparently, the director doesn't either. If it were functioning normally, those who attempted to steal products would be punished with a fine/dismissal.
Sage, when I say "equal STARTING opportunities," I mean that there isn't any force (especially legal force) that would prevent a person from becoming whoever they want within the bounds of the law. And if you haven't become Abramovich, then, for the most part, it's only your own laziness to blame... Yes, Sage, happy upcoming holidays.
Берсерк
Auto-translated
How many clever words you utter here! You should go into politics! You would stand on the podium and tell everyone how good democracy is and how bad communism is! But I would gladly live forty years ago, so as not to experience this very "great" democracy.
I don't mind, but you WOULD live, and people DID live during the repressions and collectivization. And these are different things. Look at the world through rose-colored glasses; I didn't say that democracy is a good form of government. There is no democracy as such. But communism is evil. History is proof of that. How many victims are there in the world from democracy? How many from communism? What is the argument about? If you like it, let it be. :)
AlexeyPank
Auto-translated
It's quite pleasant when people, who judge reality based on television and the press, call you a traitor. Unlike some, I won't point fingers; I study history, I don't invent it. Yes, there were problems in the USSR, and there were problems in China too. But to call the system that existed in the USSR communism is the height of ignorance. It can hardly be called socialism either; it was more like state capitalism, but with social security. Do you know how many centuries I would have to save with my current salary to buy an apartment? Do you know how long I would have to work to go on vacation? And yet, according to the Constitution of the Russian Federation, it is a social state. I listened to Putin's speech today – it was 3.14 times more of a lie than usual. And it was so crude and low-quality. In the USSR, at least, the propaganda was more intelligent. I'm not calling for a return to the USSR, especially its final years – it was a swamp. But it's impossible to live in such a country. I am ready to fight and die for a bright future, for my children, so that they live not in this "Ereph," but in a country where it is possible to live. They say that the USSR was built on blood. But – on its own blood. And the well-being of the USA is built on the blood of the Indians, the indigenous people of the continent. Of course, it's easier to live at the expense of others than at your own expense.
Unlike some, I won't point fingers; I study history, I don't invent it.
I must have studied history poorly; all I do is make things up :( But does it turn out well?
But calling the system that existed in the USSR communism is the height of ignorance.
Alexey, please read the History textbook for grades 10-11 or buy a reference book and familiarize yourself with it. The height of ignorance is a joke. If you insist, I will quote three independent sources that use exactly that word. There were no communists or a Party in our country; there were Socialists? Don't make me laugh, dear Alexey. I can take a dictionary and then prove, point by point, that a phenomenon like communism did exist. (.....) Do whatever you want in your Russia; I was only talking about the USSR and the danger of communism. At least your family is not subjected to repression, so it is easier for you to talk. Do you know Murphy's Law? No matter which line you are in, it will always seem to you that the second one is moving faster. As soon as you switch to the second one, the first one will start moving faster. Finally, your back-and-forth will start to annoy people in both lines. :) So, life always seems better where we don't live.
But the prosperity of the USA is built on the blood of the Indians.
A lie. Or ignorance. All the wealth flowed to Portugal and Spain, for your information. And the war with the Indians was different, when everything had already been plundered. Thousands of people from different countries flocked to America, where they built houses and raised livestock. No one justifies the colonists' policy of placing Indians in reservations, but prosperity was clearly not built on this. Territory, and only territory. The rest is culture and a nation formed by the colonists. The Indians didn't even want to be slaves.
Did you read that? Now, throw all those words out of your head. :) There's no need for us to argue about a past regime that almost no one remembers anymore.
